Over a couple of threads it has generally been established that a short sword is ideal for close urban confines, CQC. We aren't talking about holding narrow hallways but dynamic interior environments.
To continue the discussion in a more specific sense, what type of short sword would you argue to be best? I would out forth that a Gladius or Messer [pic rel] would be preferable. Messer if not using any kind of shield or buckler, Gladius if shield is in play.
What do you think?
I think you got the right idea with a messer with a long grip and knuckle bow. That or a naval cutlass for added hand protection. Messer and buckler is an iconic duo.
Certainly a deadly combination yes. I'm still unsure if a shield would be preferable to an off-hand weapon like a dagger. Lighter, faster and more agile.
Unless going all historical I'd put a flashlight pepper-spray etc. on the list above bucklers & daggers.
>Lighter, faster and more agile.
an off-hand weapon may be lighter and handier than a shield, but it doesn't make (you) faster and more agile. More difficult and requires more energy to block with a dagger or small axe, which means you'll tire out much faster. Fighting is extremely tiring, and a tired swordfighter is a dead one. A large shield may be heavy, but takes less movement and energy to block with, and also offers much greater margin for error on part of the blocker.
Off-hand weapons look sick in movies but would get you killed
Why can't you morons think in anything that isn't extremes? Parrying daggers existed, they might not have been as optimal as a larger shield (which you might not always have at hand) but it's clear that they worked at least well enough to see use for many years and be taken seriously by contemporary masters and manuscripts.
>taken seriously by contemporary masters
>masters
That's the point. Such offhand parrying weapons were only useful in the hands of fit and capable people well versed with those weapons and at a time when the expectation was hand-to-hand combat. Nobody today has those skills, and everybody on this board is out of shape. Additionally, I maintain that in unarmored combat with bladed weapons wherein your primary weapon is a short sword, a large shield will absolutely serve you better with less skill required. Especially against somebody who does not have a shield, regardless of what else they have in their offhand.
You think a parrying dagger looks cool, so you ignore reality.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
school is back in session why are you still here
For pointing out how retarded your post is?
If you're trained or otherwise are experienced enough it can be effective. Personally I'd just take the shield instead. When I started fighting I tried Florentine (two weapons) and it worked for some things but most of the time it just got me "killed" because it was really damn hard to stop a lot of shots a shield would have simply been in the way of. Shields also were still really hard to deal with.
A buckler is a great shield but I think it's also one that you want to have more experience to trust your life to for pretty much the same reason I don't think Florentine is good for most people. There's plenty of things out there that are just plain better for your average Joe. I think the right choice for most folks is a basic strap shield with a reasonable surface area. You can still bash and bully but it's also just plain easier to block with.
>A buckler is a great shield but I think it's also one that you want to have more experience to trust your life to for
That’s definitely true, but imagine if the home invader had a knife or something, which is extremely common, you’d basically just need to punch at his knife hand with the buckler to disarm him. I have an old 12” GDFB buckler and the thing weighs a ton, getting your hand whacked by it would absolutely cause injury and make you drop your knife. It’s also so heavy that I’m confident that punching with the rim of the shield could cave a skull in. I’m in the US so anyone that breaks into my house gets buckshot, but if I lived somewhere where guns were more restricted, I would absolutely use some kind of short sword and a buckler.
rapier and roman shield.
Rapier, short sword, or sidesword and handgun-rated buckler.
Lantern shield but with a strobing retina melting flashlight and pistol in the off hand and your preferred melee weapon in your right (which can be another moderned up lantern shield if you like to party)
We get it, you're a Blitz main
this is the way to go if you are medium to high skill. buckler is the "punch at threat to protect" min max style, all that you need against a lower skilled opponent.
double weapons are not worth IMO you need to very skilled and calm to take advanced of it at all.
hide behind shield and stab is more idiot-proof by a mile
>a short sword
Just reminder how short sword is defined.
>To know the perfect length of your sword, you shall stand with your sword and dagger drawn, as you see this picture, keeping out straight your dagger arm, drawing back your sword as far as conveniently you can, not opening the elbow joint of your sword arm, and look what you can draw within your dagger, that is the just length of your sword, to be made according to your own stature.
The length of short swords, long knives, messers and so on varied but your looking anywhere from 1-2 feet.
Roman Gladius for example ranged from about 18" up to about 27" but the longer ones were cavalry swords and not really /shortswords/ as we'd tend to think of them.
These are not short swords anon.
They go by their respective names.
Short sword is what I described.
AD&D was disaster for medieval culture study.
>a sword that is short is not a short sword
>AD&D was disaster for medieval culture study.
Silver was a disaster and not medieval and not relevant outside of people who can't be bothered to know a proper language like Italian Spanish, or French.
No one cared about what the autistic italophobic gentry unlicensed guy was ranting about back then and no one should care now.
Does anyone make decent replica of shorter more modern types?
(or affordable decent customs)
I've had my eyes in pic related for a while. Love the look of it. Honshu also makes a really neat looking wakizashi with a good length grip. (Boshin Wakizashi SKU: UC3125).
If I was going for HD in a small house or other really tight quarters I'd definitely pick the gladius and a shield though. Usually a good length, double edged, and a good stabber. As I said in the other thread make sure you get a shield you can actually use with your sword. It increases your capabilities a lot.
Here's that wakizashi. 9" grip on it.
I would've bought one of those if I didn't already own this.
It's a modern descriptive term for a sword shorter than the average arming sword.
If we're talking about CQC, gladius and messer will both serve equally well, but you absolutely would be handicapping yourself if you choose not to use a shield. Preferably a large one like a scutum. Obviously allows you to block, but also allows you to advance and close distance safely, allows you to hide which angle you intend to use your sword from, and of course can be used to bash an enemy.
Without a shield, a battle of short swords quickly resembles an uncoordinated machete-swinging contest dependent on luck, as seen in South America and Bongland these days. (we all know the video)
Just use a gun
>Reach is a detriment inside a buil-
anon those soldiers literally have guns. we're talking about swords.
FYI, the bayonet advance syncs up perfectly. with the Cupid Shuffle
It is incredible how long lived the concept of sharp thing on a stick is. Thousands of years old and it works as good as it did during the Grug age.
Holy shit, organized men with weapons beat disorganized retards without!
I cant wait to run down all my hallways wide enough for four men to stand shoulder to shoulder across with room to spare to tell my family!
It's not. The short spear is objectively the better weapon.
Retard.
>Muh gladius ad nauseam
You'd just use a bayonet lug/mount, and whatever fix blade was compatible
I would go with a spadroon
THE SPADROONER:
>does massive thrusts
>doesn't even know anything about history, just fucking spadroons
>"AAAAAAAAA IM SPADROONING!!!!!!"
>extremely aesthetic right side
>huge half shell
>hates sabre
>does sabre techniques anyway
>his mere existence puts fear into rapierists everywhere, doesn't care
>only watches his own sparring
>+10000 pics of your favorite pattern, doesn't even know its year
>has never even heard of wilkinson
>shows the duality of straight swords merely by his swinging
Wouldn't a mace or club of the same length be better for the average person?
Clubs were used by people too poor to afford blades.
Maces were used primarily for fighting armored opponents. Swords were the go to sidearm for most warriors from the bronze ages onwards because if you want to fuck someone up really quickly then running them through or slashing their belly open is way more effective than hoping you can swing hard enough to break a bone.
The average person doesn't know how to use a sword. For most people a club would be more effective.
I
Don't be retarded. If you can swing a club you can swing a single edged sword. It's not rocket science.
Also
>having something for self defense purposes
>not learning how to fucking use it properly
NGMI.
Using a sword is not hard unless you're trying to duel someone for some reason
Just hitting something is piss easy
Eh, maybe something like a longsword or a rapier. Short choppy swords are pretty straightforward.
>Maces were used primarily for fighting armored opponents
Maces were used well before the age of widespread and covering armor.
>having something for self defense purposes
>not learning how to fucking use it properly
Then why does everyone assume the guy with a sword is an expert swordsman but every guy with a mace is 50 IQ drooling retard?
>Maces were used well before the age of widespread and covering armor
Yeah, primarily by people that couldn't get a blade or didn't want their target dead. Pointing out that maces were used *sometimes* doesn't really help your argument here. Blades were the go-to sidearm for the vast, vast majority of warriors up into the modern age and you can't even attempt to dispute that fact.
>expert swordsman
You don't need to be an expert swordsman to fuck someone up with a long blade, and being skilled with a mace isn't going to change the fact that you need a big swing to really hurt someone + your mace is much easier to wrestle out of your hand than a sharp blade.
>Blades were the go-to sidearm for the vast, vast majority of warriors up into the modern age and you can't even attempt to dispute that fact.
Blades AND maces and other things were carried as sidearms or primary arms depending on the unit, the time period, and a host of other factors.
>Pointing out that maces were used *sometimes* doesn't really help your argument here
your reductionist argument bad
my reductionist argument good.
>You don't need to be an expert swordsman to fuck someone up with a long blade
You absolutely need skill. It only takes a cursory glance on youtube to see hordes of amateur fat mall ninja failing to cut water bottles due to having no edge alignment. Or the videos of British chavs machete fighting each other only to have minor wounds at the end of it.
>and being skilled with a mace isn't going to change the fact that you need a big swing to really hurt someone
Being skilled with a mace absolutely means you don't need a big swing to hurt someone. Having good technique and fundamentals means you shorten the arc of your swing significantly while still being able to generate knockout force. You don't see guys in ACL or BotN using their maces like baseball bats.
Blades have always been carried by peasants, traveling merchants and the like, a long knife is a go to sidearm. That was true for as long as people were able to afford/made them.
As you go back into early and pre-metal age the club sees an increased useage. As metal becomes cheaper and more available long knives become very standard. Now this can be something as simple as a dirk, rondel, or Messer.
The reason for this is simple, blunt weapons are more efficient Vs armoured targets and blades are more efficient Vs unarmoured targets.
Is a club or mace still an effective weapon against an unarmoured target? Yes, but it's not as EFFICIENT.
It's about efficient.
>But a skilled mace user...
You started this off claiming that they're better for unskilled people. I am still saying that a sword is better in the hands of an unskilled person, but being skilled is always better of course.
As
these guys said, blades are just more efficient at dealing debilitating or lethal injuries, since they can do it in a variety of ways while a mace cannot. Again, I will also point out that if it were to come down to a grappling match you would be far better off with a blade because the other guy can't grab your weapon easily without getting his hands cut to shit, and you can easily make draw cuts or stab them even if you're wrestling.
>You started this off claiming that they're better for unskilled people.
That wasn't me.
>I am still saying that a sword is better in the hands of an unskilled person
from the recent gladius thread
Shit probably wasn't sharp out of the box. Most "sharp" swords aren't very sharp at all.
To be fair to modern Cold Steel their machetes are usually mad decent out of the box. More than likely that dude was just a bitch. That particular machete is not associated with people of quality.
Many retards also have trouble tying their shoes, does that make tying shoes a skill-intensive action?
"I'll take 'FLENSING' for a thousand, Alex".
A chap is going to be rather hard-put to stay in the fight when his quadricep muscle has been flensed from his thigh.
Yes, it's a flesh wound, but that flesh was what was keeping him standing erect and moving.
Same can be accomplished by flensing his arm muscles.
You just whittle him down a bit, and then gakk him at your leisure.
maces and clubs need to be swung and they are more reliant on strength. sword can thrust and cut even at 0 range
what's that soun- SWISH SWOSHH
yep, that's the superiority of the sabre you are hearing
there's a reason most european and other states around the world switched to it as a standardized sword.
can cut, will thrust and is reasonably affordable.
>there's a reason most european and other states around the world switched to it as a standardized sword.
That's not true. The debate between straight and (slightly) curved blade (for the purposes of unarmored fighting on foot) went on in europe from the 15th to the 20th century and was not in any way won by one faction.
Did you read OP? We are talking about close cramped environments where you would have a lot of trouble swinging a full length sword.
Then why did you post a full length sabre and talk about full length sabres like you were trying to expand the scope of the discussion?
Btw. the argument between straight and curved happens at any blade length. Though obviously the tradeoffs are different at different lengths.
I didn't. I'm the OP.
Why not a gun?
Sword + revolver is a kino combo I wish were more popular.
Your daily reminder that samurai and cowboys existed at the same time
The katana, such a beautiful weapon... Why is it that the slight curve and the long handle makes it stick out so much? There are many beautiful longswords and curved swords but none of them compare to the katana. Well aside from persian swords, those are nice.
Autistic craftsmanship. There was more of a religious component to swords in Japan than in other places. That said, other swords can be quite beautiful. More than a katana, imo.
>Autistic craftsmanship.
The problem is there are few examples you can compare directly. e.g.
Rapier/Saber/Spadroon is probably better. Theres a reason why swords kinda ended in those shapes, they work well against anyone armored or unarmed.
Read the OP.
Were talking about tight interior confines where a long sword or longer sword in general would be a significant hinderance.
Like what a closet? The swords I listed are single handed swords
Pulwar
Ew. Nice sword, though.
id pull her ward if you know what I dont mean
Does anyone recall a tr@nny weapon enthusiast on youtube? I recall seeing a couple of their videos in Matt Easton's liked videos maybe six years ago?
Intentionally avoiding spam filters is against the rules.
>Intentionally avoiding spam filters is against the rules.
So is threatening a report, so I guess we're all fucked huh.
This one?
I like how no amount of frilly clothes and makeup can hide how uber masculine his hands look from all the weaponsmithing.
Maybe.
Yeah that seems about what I remember
>I recall seeing a couple of their videos in Matt Easton's liked videos
hahahaha
ohhh noooo
No one will see this. I love sucking cock and small swords remind me of cock
I don't even know what "enclosed environment" means anymore in these threads. If some future doctor and I are playing yakkety sax around a table or a couch give me my fucking spear, I can stab the guy without even getting close, and I can use the furniture as an additional obstacle to keep him from approaching. Are we fighting in a pantry? Yeah, I guess a knife would be better than anything longer, but how did we get there in the first place?
what the fuck are you even talking about
Esl pls go
Learn to articulate sentences that don't sound like a drunkard's ramblings, retard.
That is everyday english as long as you aren't a literal shit sucking thirdie
No, anon, your post was needlessly verbose and convoluted, stop coping.
Post guns.
Are you high?
Are you fat?
Dunno, anon, maybe? I do prefer a good burger over that weed you seem to love.
I am always surprised by how few sword manufacturers market a sword as a conquistador sword. Viking, samurai, knight, you have all sorts of options. I would like a sword to hang on the wall and swing around in my yard that could have been in Cortes’ contingent during the conquest of Mexico and keep coming back to pic related. I know there was quite a bit of variety in the swords carried by the conquistadors, and also like to imagine that someone might have brought along an old arming sword that went from being used to kill Moors by his father or grandfather and ended up in America killing Aztecs lol maybe I’ll go in that direction
A "Conquistador sword"?
No such thing.
The conquistador was a horny Spanish Joo with the sniffles and a skin rash.
Got some Native American mogambo for a brass button or a ribbon, infected her ass, and wiped out an entire "civilization",(I use the term loosely...the Aztecs were profoundly deHispanicable ignorant pagans with bloodthirsty hobbies, and they deserved everything they got).
Fuck off gay
>am always surprised by how few sword manufacturers market a sword as a conquistador sword
You're simply dealing with early complex hilt types, harder to make than simple cruciform and smaller market, so more work to put into a product for less money.
... so manufacture will only happen if the maker is actually interested in the swords, or targeting a niche, less for reaching the largest market possible.
e.g.
this guy with a few more less common ones coming up.
(some more rapiers, also a Spanish one which would fit the conquistador requirement)
We're STILL doing this?
I thought that this would have been consigned to the Flat Earth Debate squad.
Of course a short sword/ big pig-sticker is ideal for cramped close-quarters combat if you're restricted to a bladed weapon.
Whatever flavor you want to call it, messer, falchion, hanger, cutlass, Bowie...who gives a shit?
Those that think otherwise can go walk with the fucking shepherd...
Rangefagging works indoors, you know. The idea that you need a small weapon to be maneuverable indoors is a meme borne from DnD rulebooks.
Carry a rapier or a spear. If you aren’t pretending that guns don’t exist, then a pro 90.
>The idea that you need a small weapon to be maneuverable indoors is a meme borne from DnD rulebooks.
Depends on how cramped the building is, the reason for carrying a smaller sword in japan was to be able to effectively use it indoors.
A MCmansion will be fine with katana-sized stuff, but in the US not using a gun is stupid anyway, however dwellings and legislature in other cities will not let you use a gun, or long weapon it in decent fashion.
Japanese also had spears with shorter staffs to keep next to the pillow for indoor, pillow-spears makura-yari.
>The idea that you need a small weapon to be maneuverable indoors is a meme borne from DnD rulebooks.
No it isn't.
>iFilename
>Popular thing bad
What a strange age.
>the lower decks of a sailing ship are equivalent to being inside a normal, modern house
>naval cutlasses were only used for killing people, never to cut rope or canvas
>a long weapon would be easy to carry on a swaying ship while climbing masts and ropes, running on wet wooden decking, and boarding other ships
You are right. There are zero additional considerations you must take into account when selecting a weapon for naval combat. Clearly, a cutlass is the ideal weapon on land as well as sea.
>Lower decks are the only place combat happened
>People ran over to the cutlass rack to get something to cut some rope
>It'd be super hard to balance with a pole in your hands
And of course let's gloss over spears seeing use on ships but being way on the short side. Dudes who had to keep space in mind generally kept stuff relatively short for no reason whatsoever.
There’s a recent cutting edge invention called a scabbard. It allows you to hang a sword by your belt. Unfortunately, boarding pikes are inferior weapons as they are over 3ft in length and thus unsuitable for any sort of combat. They were mostly decorative in nature, although some were used as masturbatory aids by gays like you.
Scabbards weren't new to people back then. Yet they often kept their cutlasses in weapon racks and didn't touch them until the need arises. You also find incredibly robust hand protection on many naval cutlasses, so much so that carrying them would be a burden, especially if
>on a swaying ship while climbing masts and ropes, running on wet wooden decking
Also I'm very interested to follow another Anon's specific question. Where exactly in D&D is this rule specified.
It isn't, but there are other games that have it. It was a thing in kenshi, where there was a rather arbitrary penalty system for using some weapons indoors. But that game had a lot of meme tier giant swords that look like clouds buster sword, so realism wasn't the goal anyway.
i have posted once about m1841 and its one the best for self defense probably,
but i have put an autistic amount of thought into modern use of a sword for self defense or perhaps something like ww1 trench clearing and imo good options would something like a british 1804 cutlass and a modern kingfisher machete
Agreed. In a world where most don't have a sword and tigt urban settings are common, a short sword is the beat sword
Long knife (or even a short one) is way better than a short sword in that case. Concealability >>> a few inches of reach.
In any case, we don’t live in a world where people do not carry swords or guns, but where it is easy to carry or conceal a sword. You can’t just walk around with a machete up your asshole.
Would something like a Fairbairn Sykes be ideal in such conditions? Or would a compact Bowie work better?
Smatchet.
Those heavy hacking knives are usually weapon/tool combinations, like the kukri or bolo. For combat, the hacking potential isn't worth the weight and clumsiness.
Tell this guy that.
>smatchet
>clumsy
pick one
>The psychological reaction of any man, when he first takes the smatchet in his hand, is full justification for its recommendation as a fighting weapon. He will immediately register all the essential qualities of a good soldier-confidence, determination, and aggressiveness.
Its balance, weight, and killing power, with the point, edge, or pommel, combined with the extremely simple training necessary to become efficient in its use, make it the ideal personal weapon for all those not armed with a rifle and bayonet.
>guy who invents thing claims it's the best thing ever
It's heavy and cumbersome, it wasn't adopted by the military, and the only historical or ethnic equivalents are, as I explained, hacking tool/weapon combinations. When it came to combat, people preferred lighter designs. Including the later fairbairn himself.
>it wasn't adopted by the military
It was adopted by the British Army.
> and the only historical or ethnic equivalents are hacking tool/weapon combinations
It was directly inspired by the Welsh Trench Knife, which was a purpose designed weapon.
what is the historical equivalent of it? gladius?
Seems more similar to a short stocky xiphos.
>It was adopted by the British Army.
No it wasn't. It was used by some special forces, for a very short time. It was never mass issued.
>Welsh Trench Knife, which was a purpose designed weapon
And which also didn't catch on, for the exact same reason.
Just listen to how fairbairn describes it - the weight gives the soldier confidence, the hacking is easier to learn and more intuitive than stabbing. He himself preferred and designed lighter daggers.
>It killed at least one guy, therefore it's better than all the other weapons that also killed at least one guy
Look, there's a wealth of historical evidence that people made a lot of use of light daggers and little use of heavy, leaf bladed, chopping daggers. Look at medieval europe - even the most chop-centric combat knives, german bauernwehrs and stuff, were not as heavy as a smatchet. Noone says that the smatchet will not kill, but it will be slower to wield in a fight and heavier to carry around.
Lighter stabbier daggers were popular in times where armour was popular. Choppier knives and daggers like seaxes and bowies were more popular in periods where armor was minimal or nonexistent.
But this is not true? Mid to late Medieval daggers are all pointy and narrow, so are early medieval and well just look at pic rel. You say that we used stuff like smatchets in early period and narrow pointy blades in late period. Can you post examples of this please? Design, period and what it's called.
I could agree that blades tended to be broader, and I expect that's largely to do with materials, try make a narrow pointy bronze dagger and see how well that works, but I don't think we ever had a smatchet style dagger in common usage.
T. Brit
I literally said seax and bowie. Seax in migration period and viking period, and bowie style knives in the "wild west" times. So before and after the age of plate armour.
I'm well aware of the difference in thickness, medieval anti-armor daggers are an extreme case of this. A lot of bowies for example are quite thick at the spine though, giving them a lot of mass.
I think both of you will have a much easier time making heads from tails with these things if you keep in mind that just like a sword, a dagger is a three-dimensional object. The blade doesn't just have a length and a width, but also a thickness.
Now when you stab, the blade can flex in whichever direction it wants, and so it will always flex (and, if it comes to that, break) in whichever direction is the easiest. Thus between width and thickness it's whichever is the smallest that'll have the main influence on how sturdy the blade is, and as anti-armour work can be hell on the blade this means we tend to get designs that have quite narrow but very thick blades (in extreme cases the cross section can end up outright square, or an equilateral triangle). This also means that these daggers may not be anywhere near light, the extra thickness more than makes up for the reduced width.
>Choppier knives and daggers like seaxes and bowies
Were still lighter than a smatchet.
Lots of medieval daggers were also meant for civilian use, with no armour involved.
Poster i was replying to was saying there is no evidence for choppy dagger being used in history, i was simply pointing out they in fact did. And yes, pointy daggers were used in unarmored context too, but thats partially simply because that was the dagger design of the time. Just like how swords generally tended to become pointier and stiffer as more armour was being used in battle, those same swords were carried in civilian life, instead of more cut centric swords. Not everything at every time period is all about performance, fashion plays a big part in what people carry around.
I said I wasn't aware of it ever being common. And I wasn't because it isn't a common a solution. Seax wasn't necessarily as much of a smatchet as you think it was. The Bowie I'm happy to give to you, it doesn't surprise me that someone at some point for at least some span of years used a smatchet type knife, but why do you think it was never really a 'common' solution and there are only isolated examples in very limited time periods?
Forgot pic.
I fucking love hobbit swords
Fairbairn is better than a Bowie for close contact work, he also pioneered fighting techniques with said knife, garden gnometube it for some cool old timer nalck and white knife training videos.
Imo the typical blade length of modern combat knives (15-17cm) is both to make it useful as a tool knife and because trench fighting is EXTREMELY cramped. A space like a train, plane, bus is maybe comparable, but on the street or in a normal room I'd want something with more length. Medieval daggers had blades of 20-30cm, if you can conceal that I'd rather have that over a FS.
Daggers are concealable yes.
I don't know anyone thinks a short sword is not concealable, back in ye olde day they just covered it with their cloak, I'm sure a modern coat or jacket would do the same trick.
>The idea that you need a small weapon to be maneuverable indoors is a meme borne from DnD rulebooks.
What rule would that be?
John 3:16
I too love Stone Cold Steve Austin.
And yet examples of people preferring shorter swords for cramped environments (be it a ship, a tight formation, or indoors combat) keep showing up across history.
Katana and wakizashi or no balls.
What's the craziest melee confirmed kill? I heard an army ranger guy killed a dude with a mre spoon.
some dude killed a bear bare handed
i remember some guy choked a mountain lion to death when it jumped on his back
>make thread about Gladius
>Spear shitters shit it up
>Make seperate thread about short swords only
>Spear shitters literally cannot cope with not being involved and come over to shit it up too.
Gladiusfags are the spearfags of swordfags and don't get me started on this new bluntfag epidemic.
The cope is real
Channels called fun time with weapons or something I think, some gothy looking chud that hand makes various implements. I looked up DiY trench maces and that's how I know.
Op basically asked for it when he had a tantrum in the other thread.
>Still trying to steer short sword discussion towards spears
What is your problem?
Reminds me of the guy in PrepHole who goes into bushcraft threads trying to convince people that a machete is a superior wood processing tool and ditch axes.
Retards.
I haven't brought up spears in this thread. Instead I posted a falchion and a wakizashi. You're a whiny moron that threw a tantrum because people started talking about things you don't like. Got a good chuckle over someone immediately bringing up spears here to piss you off though.
I'm the guy from the other thread who kept telling you that you're gonna die if you think you can just deflect, trap, then run down a spear or pike as if it's easy.
>even when talking about swords, the spearfag must fag. He simply must fag.
Yeah I'm the OP and prev thread OP and not the guy you were having that incredibly gay argument with. In the dude that told you then and is telling you now to fuck off out of my thread with your prancing lala shit.
I don't think I will anon~kyun <3.
However seeing as how some dumbass isn't claiming he can just easily defeat (insert weapon here) like a retard in the exact way people have probably said they totes can for literally thousands of years then rabidly defending his mind numbingly stupid "instant win" plan I actually posted some short swords to talk about.
Here's a new conversation starter though: I like short swords that still have grips long enough for two hands. How about you?
>I like short swords that still have grips long enough for two hands. How about you?
Often those long grips are used more for balance in lieu of a pommel rather than for two-handed gripping.
Makes sense but it's nice to easily be able to get the control and power you can put in with two hands when you need it. For balance or not, grip is grip.
Well, i'm not exactly against the notion, iv owned short swords before whereby the pommel was significant enough to allow the engagement of the off hand to deliver a more powerful blow, as well on the thrust. It doesn't seem like something that would come up a lot in an actual engagement.
You asked for it when you started spamming these shitty bong threads
Geez, what an angry bitch.
He's starting to meme
Kek, his falseflag got BTFO.
Spearfags regularly post shitty bait threads because they hate how comfy swordthreads are when they don't desperately try to shit them up. Unfortunately no one posts in spearthreads so their threads always die after they've bumped them twenty times.
anyone have good info sites on classical, medieval and renaissance sword types with quality photos?
>sites
You might be better off just looking for books on the subject really. The people that have the ability to actually get their hands on museum examples for photos and stuff while also writing solid info on them (rather than internet conjecture) are going to be scholars doing it for a living.
Ewart Oakeshott wrote a number of books about his studies of weaponry in museum collections. His books have sketches rather than photos though.
It's worth noting though that Matt Easton actually got his hands on a bunch of the swords that Oakshott studied fairly recently, and he said that Oakshott actually got quite a lot of details (like measurements and weights) wrong in at least one of his books.
you might be right. I have some books but need to check if theres more at local library first
>slashfagging
>in the year of our lord 0 + 2023
Cutting has been irrelevant in no—mounted combat since 1575.
>Cutting has been irrelevant in no—mounted combat since 1575.
Capoferro still talks of the use of the cut, Fabris begins his book by a cutting diagram. A cut follows a thrust and a thrust, a cut, thus they go hand in hand. A cut is also superior against more than one opponent. Cutting is still the best defense against itself also s it's hazardous to answer a cut by a thrust though the exchange of cuts or thrusts is perfectly viable. Also you're trolling or a scot.
Once you see it you can't unsee it. The thrust is BJJ and the cut is striking.
>The thrust is BJJ and the cut is striking.
The former optimized for duels with lots of rules and the latter used 99% of the time for all fighting ever?
I have a Windlass D-Guard Bowie next to my bed.
So what's the quality of windlass stuff like? Was looking at the archer sword recently for £105
I only have that one, and it's solid as fuck. Great value for money.
Is that the Confederate Bowie?
Probably
why dont you pieces of shit link me a sword, short bow, and nunchakus that are actually quality weapons?
No gay shit.
Not the most artistic shit
the reliable and high performance shit
I have a big and medium eastwing axe
Worth noting that the CS Gladius Sword [not machete] was a poorfag recommendation, as for that price there isn't much of better quality in the same weapon class.
We would expect that a man of more means would purchase a more quality piece.
We already did the leg work for the poor fags and you want us now to do the much harder legwork of market research at higher bands?
No. Fuck you. Please have fun looking for a quality piece and do be so good as post an in depth review when you get one, to assist in market research for other gayS like you.
Own a gladius for home defense, since that's what the patrians intended. Four barbarians break into my house. "Alea iacta est!" As I grab my galea, gladius, scutum and pilum. Sever the neck of the first man with my gladius, he's dead on the spot. Throw my pilum on the second man, miss him entirely because it's dark and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the ballista mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with stones, "ROMA INVICTA" the shot skewers two men in the blast, the sound and debris set off car alarms. I grab my pugio and charge the last terrified punic. He bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since the internal wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the patres intended.
I will offer a fine sacrifice to the temple of Mars and JVPITER!
>verification not required
>Be a British fuedal peasant
>4 ruffians break into my hovel at night
>COR BLIMEY! I scream as I grab my long bow, bollock knife and longsword just like the good King intended
>I stick the first ruffian with the bollock knife, shove it right up that 'oologans gizzards
>I fire from the top of the stairs with the longbow and completely miss, nailing the neighbor's dog
>I draw the Longsword and charge wildly down the stairs screaming madly
>All three of us bust through the door into the flower garden, two of the rapscallions impaled on my longsword and impaling the concerned neighbor
>Just as the good King intended
Very nice, getting a matching set of armament of a historical warrior is definitely something I want to do one day.
Look at the CRKT Hisshou
The additional mass of the Messer/Falchion may be better against perps with a lot of layering and/or blubber, and the guard protection is better in the event they pull a knife (and not a firearm for whatever britbong reason). The Gladius is probably handier and lighter enough to make the hand guard deficiency irrelevant while being a better thruster. Messer/Falchion for chop-maxxing may be better for the less trained. Either way the addition of a buckler or full blown shield of some variety ought to join it whatever's chosen.
Then again with a sufficiently large shield an axe/hatchet/tomahawk could be the most grug option with the lowest skill floor and least exposure. The axe will penetrate/lacerate/concuss regardless of whatever the hypothetical ghoul has on. On that note -- no reason not to have a helmet, even if it's just one for bicycling.
Isn't the Gladius a pretty fantastic chopper, even if Roman doctrine emphasized the thrust?