in a tournament battle to the death using every sword in history, which sword would win in 1v1 unarmored combat assuming every sword was wielded by an expert swordsman of that type or style sword?
so for example, a rapier would be wielded by capo ferro, katana would be wielded by musashi, you get the idea. each sword being used by an expert in that sword. the point being to figure out which sword type is best against every other sword type assuming there is no armor at all being used. the duelers will be naked. the only other rule is that only 1 sword can be used, no dual wielding and no shields. this is a sword only battle.
> duelers will be naked.
EZPZ
this is an idiotic question, and there is no answer.
If there were a sword type which had significant advantages, everyone would've gravitated to it. More importantly, different weapon designs are developed to respond to different criteria. A broad falchion for example, excels at unarmoured targets, but would be useless against armour. An oakeshott Type XVII of the same date excels in opening up gaps in between plates, but can be useless as a cutter. Is one "better" than the other? no, they both excel in the purpose they were designed for. And that's within the context of one single half-century of history, in one part of the world. you have an entire planet of different weapons and 4000 years of variations. There are so many variables, its impossible to quantify them.
There is no one "best", its not a game with statistics where the Type XIII has plus 5, and the Edo Period Katana has plus 3. Attempting to qualify any weapon in isolation without the context of the technological processes available to its makers, and the environmental context of its use are futile.
As such, is just as valid an answer as any sword.
>a rubber dildo would beat a sword
Hyperbole is not your friend, anon.
I meant its as valid an answer in that, there is no actual answer.
while range is obviously advantageous, (so, the poor bastard with a 3rd millennium BC Turkish bronze sword that's barely dagger sized is clearly going to have a bad day) beyond that, you really cant say that any one is "the best". And those which are are shorter were clearly chosen for reasons - be that technological limitations, or practical application reasons.
NPC post, the scenario is clearly described. Everybody else says the reasonably longest sword and they're right.
what an idiotic response. so a knight with an oakshot type xvii would never be expected to step in and defend his noble against a couple of unarmored brigands trying to rob the coach? of course he would use it against them and stab and cut them just fine. the point of the thought exercise is to see which sword is best assuming no armor is involved.
>there is no answer.
Yes there is, and it is proven by centuries of military science and civilian experimentation- the rapier wins. Even in the crucible of multi-man melee on horse or afoot, the straight thrusting sword dominates every contest from the song of the morning lark to the ending of the world
>The cut wounds, but the thrust kills
No Exceptions, homosexual.
>Even in the crucible of multi-man melee on horse or afoot, the straight thrusting sword dominates every contest
Wrong. People did take rapiers onto the battlefield, but they were never the predominant one-handed sword. Their main domain was in dueling.
Here is the thing rapier is very broad term, rapier is broad spectrum. Most of the 15th century swords today can classified as rapiers. Here is typical 15th century military cavalry sword wouldn't you call them "rappers"? But this were specifically battlefield weapons.
>rapiers are actually sideswords guys
gay
Their German users called them reitschwert. "Horseman sword". But really how do you distinguish them from " true rapiers"? They have complex hilt, even designed for fingering guard. Thin and long blades. What should qualify them as non rapiers? Not Spanish (because rapier is Spanish word) or what?
those look like conquistador swords
I can see you are a student of the blade. While other guys in highschool were fricking hot cheerleader pussy, you weren't.
how do you know me so well, stranger?
NTA but I did both. Legitimately. Maybe not cheerleaders but you'd be surprised how many hot girls are seriously into blades, and not just lesbians.
"Rapiers" with very broad blades were more side-swords than true rapiers. They weren't just broad - they were also shorter than typical rapier, heavier and their weight balance was different. They had ricasso, yes, but because of their other characteristic, you couldn't (generally) use rapier techiques - they were FUNCTIONALLY arming swords. True rapiers with their unique fighting technique were rather useless for mounted men. Simple as. They were too long and too thurst-centric to be an effective weapon of a cavalryman.
They weren't used by foot soldiers either - for most part. Way more popular were dussacks, hangers, cutlasses (in navies) or even arming swords (and their variants like side-swords or katzbalger).
But anons are right: rapier was THE duelling weapon. Peak evolution of duelling blade. Epee was basically a moronic child of it in times when swords finally gave up to guns and duels were formalised to the extreme, where duellists would have to use the same type of weapon.
>muh zweihander
How do you recognise someone who has no clue about swords? That's how. Zweihanders, claymors and other great swords had very concrete role in battle (breaking pikes or cutting horse's legs) and were absolutely no duelling weapons. A guy with a rapier would most probably kill somebody with great sword before he could even swung it at him.
Nope. Great sword > rapier. Rapier is every day carry weapon first and it limits it's size and effectiveness. Rapier can have edge over long sword because of the some reach advantage. But vs Great sword rapier has no such advantage, and without it rapier is bad.
The rapier is also way more nimble than a great sword and not much shorter (on average 150mm vs 130mm) plus rapier was a one-handed weapon, so you add the lenght of your arm to the blade's. In other words - rapier could have better range than great sword. And you could have something else in your other hand. Like coat, buckler or dagger.
>on average 150mm vs 130mm
those are some small swords american anon
maybe go back to using a unit system you actually master before you come play with the big boys
U WOT M8?
>A guy with a rapier would most probably kill somebody with great sword before he could even swung it at him.
you can thrust with a two-hander as well, and have reach and way more leverage against the rapier in the bind
you don't need long swings to do damage with a cut either, snappy short ones will do in an unarmored duel
Again - the difference in lenght wasn't that great and rapier was lighter, way more nimble and one-handed (and that means greater reach).
Nah. Nimble rapiers are significantly shorter than great swords and 40" plus blades are in no way nimble.
Compared to great swords - they totally are. Plus they have different centre of the mass.
>They were too long and too thurst-centric to be an effective weapon of a cavalryman.
Patton and Napoleon would like a word with you.
I'm pretty sure cavalrymen of napoleonic era were using sabers. I don't know about Patton tho'. As for Napoleon - he was using small sword if I recall correctly but that was obviously his whim, not a real need.
Again the classic rapier was thrust-centric and whole technique was based upon proper foot work. On horse you couldn't properly fence, for you can't use a footwork obviously, the horse makes many random steps etc. You could technically use your long rapier like estoc sword (poking infatry that is trying to take you down most likely), but if other mounted guy came close to you, you were toasted.
Only thrust&cut or even only cut blade was effective as an universal cavalry sword. That means either sabers, backswords, broadswords - or arming swords, INCLUDING "military rapiers", which were FUNCTIONALLY arming swords.
Both Napoleon and Patton advocated cavalrymen and their sabers favoring the point. Other nations adopted straight or mostly-straight thrust-centric cavalry sabres as well.
>The French dragoons, on the contrary, used only the point which, with their long straight swords caused almost always a fatal wound. This made the English say that the French did not fight fair. Marshal Saxe wished to arm the French cavalry with a blade of a triangular cross section so as to make the use of the point obligatory.
>At Wagram, when the cavalry of the guard passed in review before a charge, Napoleon called to them, "Don't cut! The point! The point!."
http://pattonhq.com/textfiles/saber.html
>>At Wagram, when the cavalry of the guard passed in review before a charge, Napoleon called to them, "Don't cut! The point! The point!."
That means their blades were capable of cutting tho'. I don't know why Napoleon thought that was good idea - probably because he was a huge fan of polish lancers, so he assumed thrust is better than cut (because lances are all about thrust), but then again, they used classic sabers. If thurst-centric blades were good for cavalry, the best cavalrymen in whole fricking army would use it - but they didn't. Apparently Napoleon was moronic.
>, but then again, they used classic sabers
They used both.
Literally iron club.
https://inniskillingsmuseum.com/a-french-cuirassiers-sword-2/
>which were FUNCTIONALLY arming swords
no they weren't tard
Yes, absolutely they were, swordlet.
Sabers are never thrust-centric, nor are broadswords, backswords and even spadroons. Yes, they weren't as massive as their XVII century counterparts for they didn't have to deal with any form of armor anymore (cuirassiers were so rare at that point you could literally forget about them), including leather armor.
Again: thrust-centric blades for duels and dress swords, thurst&cut for war, simple as. Even "military small swords" of XVIII century were cut and thrust blades until they were replaced by sabers (cavalry) and spadroons (infantry officers) respectively.
>Sabers are never thrust-centric
My previous post included pages from the US Army's most recent cavalry saber manual regarding the use of Patton's explicitly thrust-centric Model 1913 Cavalry Saber. This post image features the straight saber of a French cuirassier during the Napoleonic Wars. There are a number of other straight cavalry sabers which you would find if you thought to read more than you typed.
>That means their blades were capable of cutting tho'.
Yes. Patton describes cutting in a sword fight as being analogous to biting in a brawl--a good capability to retain for desperate moments, but not the highest-value skill you should focus on developing with training time:
>Will the edge ever be used? It will. Man is not very far removed from his cave ancestor. And as battle was a primal pastime, so modern man engaged in it more readily retrogrades to his hairy progenitor. It is for this reason together with the added facility in withdrawing it, that the sword was made sharp. We do not teach it any more than we do biting in a fist fight. At the last extremity, both are useful and will be used. The longer we can defer, by practice, that state of hysteria in which either will be used, the more deadly we make our swordsman or boxer.
http://www.pattonhq.com/textfiles/mounted.html
>I don't know why Napoleon thought that was good idea
Sentiment of the era based on battlefield results was that the thrust was more likely to kill while the cut was more likely to wound. By taking away the edge cavalrymen would be forced to use the more lethal point. This wasn't done for reasons similar to the Patton quote above.
Straight "saber" is a pallash/backsword. Very cut-centric weapon (that allows to make thrust of course, but that doesn't mean it is thrust-centric). The page you posted shows the fight with other cavalrymen - but cavalry was usually used to break infantry and then slash them with sabers during its retreat. This is why the ability to cut was so important for cavalry. That's one.
Two: yes, thrust is more deadly, that's totally out of discussion. But in war it's not about killing your opponent but to eliminate your opponent from fight. Please bear with me. If I stab you - you won't die instantly, you'll usually have enough life in you to strike me back. On the other hand, if I cut off your fingers - you're out instantly. Also - it's easier to slash on a horse, since a) slashing is natural reaction of a human body b) fencing from a horseback is very limited (no footwork, random horse steps etc.) and thrust centric weapons are all about fencing.
Now, about Patton... It seems to me that he was trying to invent a wheel again. He literally woke up one day and said to himself: no, all those knights, reiters, cuirassiers, winged hussars etc. were wrong for all those centuries - I KNOW BETTER.
>Straight "saber" is a pallash/backsword
No it isn't, dumb gay.
>backswords are cut-centric
even more moronic shit. you just don't stop vomiting idiotic nonsense, do you?
Lindibeige, is that you?
Yes it is. Holy frick, of which cave you crawled out, you massive moron? You know SHIT about blades, so STFU & GTFO.
Seething moron butthurt that his moronic delusions got called out.
>Yes, absolutely they were
No they weren't, tard
>Sabers are never thrust-centric
double moron
1. yes they were - they had pretty short (compared to classic rapiers) and broad blades. Pic related. With such blades you'd use it literally like arming sword.
2. saber is BY DEFINITION a backsword, you moron - and that means a blade with one cutting (CUTTING) edge. Backswords have one cutting edge because it makes it better a CUTTER.
Forgot pic.
>they had pretty short (compared to classic rapiers) and broad blades
Except they didn't.
>and that means a blade with one cutting (CUTTING) edge
>"it has a cutting edge therefore it is designed to cut".
Literal room temp IQ, holy shit.
See? You proved you know SHIT about blades. Classic rapier was 120 cm and longer. So called "military rapiers" (pic related) were considerably shorter, like this one - circa 80 cm blade. That's one. Two - both blades you posted aren't rapiers by any means (they have no ricasso) - those are so called shearing swords (later called spadroons) - a bit lighter version of broadswords.
To sum it up - since you know nothing about swords, further discussion with you is pointless.
>he dropped the muh sabers are for cutting line
Nice concession, moronic redditor frickwit.
>Classic rapier was 120 cm and longer.
Point me to a historical source that defines the "classic rapier", i can't seem to find it.
> those are so called shearing swords (later called spadroons) - a bit lighter version of broadswords.
Another potion of moronic shit that's awfully wrong.
Frick off. You don't even know what a rapier is. If certain blade doesn't have a ricasso - it isn't rapier BY DEFINITION. If you even know what ricasso is... I doubt it.
Crying, shitting and pissing yourself as you run away because your reddit theory got busted won't work here. I bet you're actually 12 due to how aggressively moronic you are and how you repeat the same dumb shit over and over again.
You didn't bust anything, I told you what characteristic a sword has to have to be considered a rapier - it HAS to have a ricasso. Period. No ricasso - no rapier. Comprende?
>You didn't bust anything
Still pretending that the whole fiasco of "straight sabres don't exist, backswords are only for cutting" didn't happen, monkey?
>I told you what characteristic a sword has to have to be considered a rapier
Cool non argument, redditor loser. What next? "A rapier has to have a point, bet you didn't know that, i'm so very smart!"
First of all - most "straight" sabres aren't exactly straight, but a bit curved. Like this one:
Second: I NEVER said backswords are only for cutting, you prostitute. I said they are cut&thurst blade - with very good cutting capabilities. Nice strawman, b***h.
>Cool non argument, redditor loser. What next? "A rapier has to have a point, bet you didn't know that, i'm so very smart!"
No, you idiot - ricasso is a thing that distinguishes rapiers from other swords. Without ricasso you can't put your fingers through the crossguard and can't perform typical for rapiers THRUSTING techniques. This is why there are so many names for swords: side-sword (spada da lato), rapier, small-sword and shearing sword - and they are all different swords.
Here - a bunch of XVII century swedish swords. NONE of them is a rapier (and weren't called as one back then).
>First of all - most "straight" sabres aren't exactly straight
Delicious redditgay cope.
>I NEVER said backswords are only for cutting
>Sabers are never thrust-centric, nor are broadswords, backswords and even spadroons
[...]
Sabers are never thrust-centric, nor are broadswords, backswords and even spadroons. Yes, they weren't as massive as their XVII century counterparts for they didn't have to deal with any form of armor anymore (cuirassiers were so rare at that point you could literally forget about them), including leather armor.
Again: thrust-centric blades for duels and dress swords, thurst&cut for war, simple as. Even "military small swords" of XVIII century were cut and thrust blades until they were replaced by sabers (cavalry) and spadroons (infantry officers) respectively.
What an embarrassment you are.
>No, you idiot - ricasso is a thing that distinguishes rapiers from other swords.
And military rapiers had it, duh. I don't see why you're so stuck up on that.
>This is why there are so many names for swords
And next to none of those are historical, lol. You're such a fricking clown.
You can't read apparently and have problems with simple logic. The fact that something ISN'T thrust-centric doesn't automatically means it rules out thrusts. Thrust-centric means the weapon either lost the capability of cuts entirely (upper: late spanish rapier) or cuts are possible but they are secondary to thrusts (blade is too narrow to perform powerful cuts, only minor ones).
Backswords were cut&thrust. They were VERY good in cuts and decent with thrusts, but nowhere as good as dedicated blades like rapiers and smallsword.
Your picture isn't rapier - it's a smallsword, which evolved from rapier. It has ricasso, but it's not functional, as small-sword were held differently (and had too short blades to be called rapiers).
The only true rapier you posted was here:
all others AREN'T, because they don't have ricasso - even rudimentary like small-swords.
Here's
how real "military rapier" looked like. Short, broad blade, similiar to arming sword and thus its usage is very similiar to arming sword, because the characteristics of both blades are similiar.
>And next to none of those are historical, lol. You're such a fricking clown.
No, you are. You can easily verify that every term is historical save "side-sword" - that's what I also used historical name: "spada da lato", you clown of a clown world.
>The fact that something ISN'T thrust-centric
That's now what you said, you slimy weaseling reddit Black person. You claimed that sabres can't be thrust centril, period, which is blatantly wrong. You're such a dumb fricking piece of shit, lmao.
>Your picture isn't rapier - it's a smallsword
You're just collecting moronic shit to display here, aren't you?
>The only true rapier
>real "military rapier"
"True rapier" my ass, loser. What a bunch of garbage.
>every term is historical
No they aren't, especially for the perdiods when such swords were commonly used.
>inb4 military rapiers are all like my modern garbage reproduction "side sword"
>You claimed that sabres can't be thrust centril, period,
Yes - and I repeat that: sabre CAN'T be thrust-centric. Read with some understanding. That doesn't mean they lost the capability of thrust. They are THRUST AND CUT blades. I repeat that over and over and you clearly lack the ability to understand that simple statement. What gives?
And if something is a smallsword - it isn't a rapier. Simple as. There's a reason why the term "small-sword" exist.
>"True rapier" my ass, loser. What a bunch of garbage.
Here's your rapier, homosexual.
>No they aren't, especially for the perdiods when such swords were commonly used.
Yes, they were. Except "side-sword" which was called "spada da lato" - or simply "sword".
>Yes - and I repeat that
of course you do you stupid monkey. Never mind that multiple people have posted obvious and well known thrust oriented sabres that fly in the face of everything your braindead theorycrafting cobbled together.
>And if something is a smallsword - it isn't a rapier.
redditard doesn't know what transitional rapiers are, more news at 11
>Here's your rapier
Seeting homosexuals cannot even make a coherent argument at this point, only reddit spacing seethe.
>Yes, they were.
No they weren't.
predates "spadroon" by over a century.
See? You keep proving you know SHIT about blades and have ZERO capability to identify them.
Here, this is how transitional rapier looked like. Typical for rapier hilt but pretty short, narrow blade (under 100 cm). You posted small-sword (short blade, hilt with shell cover, vestigial ricasso).
>No they weren't.
>they had pretty short (compared to classic rapiers) and broad blades
Except they didn't.
>and that means a blade with one cutting (CUTTING) edge
>"it has a cutting edge therefore it is designed to cut".
Literal room temp IQ, holy shit. predates "spadroon" by over a century.
Wrong. The term "shearing sword" is a synonym of "spadroon". The sword appeared in second half of XVII century (and was called "shearing sword") - and the term "spadroon" was first used in circa 1725).
Learn your shit.
Here's another example of transitional rapier:
>See? You keep proving you know SHIT about blades and have ZERO capability to identify them.
You little redditor shit can only project.
>Here, this is how transitional rapier looked like
You're allergic to posting actual historical examples, is that it? Or is it a reddit thing where you only post modern LARP pieces in a historical discussion?
>You posted small-sword (short blade, hilt with shell cover, vestigial ricasso).
Except that sword is not short, has a shell guard much like 17th century rapiers do and is way too beefy for a smallsword.
>The term "shearing sword" is a synonym of "spadroon".
More idiotic nonsense. Shearing sword is double edged, and spadroon is single edged. I'd say learn your shit but you've clearly proven you're incapable of learning, you worthless redditor subhuman.
That's original, you stupid frick.
https://www.bygoneblades.com/buy-17th-century-rapier-early-transitional-rapier-2210005
>Except that sword is not short, has a shell guard much like 17th century rapiers do and is way too beefy for a smallsword.
It is short. Not more than 80 cm blade, maybe even shorter, 65 cm even. You keep calling me redditor - and then you paste a sword that was posted on reddit (I googled it). And the guy even calls it DRESS SWORD (which is a synonymous of small-sword). And yes, it has quite broad blade, but that's typical for early small-swords.
>More idiotic nonsense. Shearing sword is double edged, and spadroon is single edged. I'd say learn your shit but you've clearly proven you're incapable of learning, you worthless redditor subhuman.
Seriously, KYS. 5 seconds of googling will tell you that you are wrong. In every case. Spadroon could be single or two edged.
>You keep calling me redditor
That's cause you obviously are you little swine. Reddit spacing, whiny non arguments, whiny patronizing attacks all point that you should go back to where you crawled from.
>and then you paste a sword that was posted on reddit
I've had this picture saved from search engine years ago.
>Seriously, KYS. 5 seconds of googling will tell you that you are wrong. In every case.
Lmao, eat shit you redditor scum.
>Spadroon could be single or two edged.
Blatantantly wrong.
>sabre CAN'T be thrust-centric. Read with some understanding. That doesn't mean they lost the capability of thrust. They are THRUST AND CUT blades.
Are you ESL or just dysfunctionally autistic?
No, it's you who don't understand what thrust-centric means. I explained it here, but since you have problems with reading, you probably missed that bit.
That's not what thrust-centric means. It means that it's built with the thrust as a primary consideration, not necessarily as the only consideration; i.e., a design centered around the thrust. A thrust-centric weapon can also be capable of the cut (e.g. Patton saber and similar) or it can be incapable of a cut (e.g. triangular smallsword) but assuming it's always the latter case is either a baseless characterization or a misunderstanding of the English language.
It seems like he's a moronic polish teenager. Why would he go and argue about swords when his shithole country has only ever copied Germans is beyond me.
>That's not what thrust-centric means.
That's exactly what thrust-centric means. Read VERY SLOWLY what I have wrote.
> Thrust-centric means the weapon either lost the capability of cuts entirely (upper: late spanish rapier) or cuts are possible but they are secondary to thrusts (blade is too narrow to perform powerful cuts, only minor ones).
Ok, moron, I have enough of your stupidness and ignorancy. And I'm 43, little b***h. Bye.
>Ok, moron, I have enough of your stupidness and ignorancy.
Lmao, pot meets kettle.
>And I'm 43
Then you're more brain damaged than an average indian street shitter.
You are ESL and/or dysfunctionally autistic.
Ok, last post and I'm out because I need to sleep.
1. thrust-centric: no capability of cuts or cuts are possible, but only minor ones because the blade is too narrow/light to, for example, cut off hand - rapiers, small-swords
2. cut&thurst - both cuts and thrusts are possible - sabers, broadswords, backswords, pallashes, katanas, arming-swords etc.
3. cut-centric - very good cutter, zero or reduced capability of thrust - some types of falchions for example.
There.
>sabers, broadswords, backswords, pallashes, arming-swords
>limited to one category
So this is how lesser nations not blessed by speaking English think.
No, it's how people who have anything in common with blades are classify swords. Of which you would know if you spent few hours to actually learn about swords.
>lesser nations
Post your hand.
>it's how people who have anything in common with blades are classify swords
So not you, lol.
>Of which you would know if you spent few hours to actually learn about swords.
More whiny condescending shit from a dumb ESL loser with the only knowledge from his backward shithole with nothing of value.
Said the guy that misidentified almost every sword he posted, lol.
Again, show hand, brownie.
Says the guy who thinks that all sabres and arming swords are the same.
I'll post hand after you post the toilet you licked clean, janusz.
>Says the guy who thinks that all sabres and arming swords are the same.
Nice strawman, moron. I never said anything like that.
Yes you did. Maybe try taking a few more English lessons before typing your moronic backwards national antics about the things you stole from your betters next time.
If you are a native english speaker and yet you don't understand simple english - you are mentally challenged apparently. Again: I never said anything like that. I even mentioned different types here:
>some types of falchions for example
And don't make me laugh, brownie. Your hand, now.
Oh i perfectly understand thay you can't make a coherent sentence and even if you could you'd only vomit moronic bullshit that your shithole country made up as they kept stealing things.
> Again: I never said anything like that.
ESL moron, you literally did. Go back to learning English.
I accept your concession.
I accept that you can't comprehend there are swords beyond those that you stole from Germans.
>he doesn't know Poles were using sabers not gay western toothpicks
God, you are hopeless.
>Poles were using sabers
And they stole them from Austrians, aka south Germans. Not that they ever achieved anything worth a damn with them, like any other homosexual eastern LARP curved sword "culture".
No, they didn't, you dumb frick. Polish saber was modified hungarian saber.
Modified by Germans, stolen by poles. Your national weapon is a cheapo copy of a weapon Germans made.
No it didn't, german Dussacke was evolution of medieval falchion, while hungarian saber was an evolution of turk sabre. Polish Commonwealth adopted hungarian sabers when Hungarian Jan Batory was crowned king and brought his soldiers with him along with their sabers.
Pic related - so called polish-hungarian saber (modified hungarian saber, ancestor of hussar saber).
Cope.
Everything in the polish sabre - from the knuckle guard to the thumb ring - was stolen directly from Germans. Now commence the cope and seethe since you've been exposed as the cultureless german asslick you are.
You are making this shit up as you go, don't you? Hungarian sabre comes straight from turk sabres.
I'm not making shit up, poles stole the only defining features of their sabre from Germans. Without those, you're literally the same as some random turkic/arab shitskin.
Sure. If anything, when Poles were adopting true sabre, Germcucks had pic rel, lol.
But still they had some steel. You browns were still using sharp sticks.
>true sabre
Aka the weapon of shitskins, that you identify with closely. Meanwhile European Sabre is an entirely different beast that you still can't understand despite being raped with numerous times.
>You browns
You're literally discount white, and can't even speak English properly.
Cope, lol. Also: it's a common knowledge that western cavalry sabre is a direct copy of late polish hussar sabre. In other words - whole western Europe copied polish sabre - so no, it's not "a different beast", it's a cheap copy.
>You're literally discount white,
I'm not "white", I'm true native 100% pure European, brownie
>and can't even speak English properly
Perhaps - but I do speak a foreign language unlike you.
1796 while successful and loved by some was relatively quickly discarded by brits though.
Their loss.
That's because they sucked at being cavalrymen and coudn't use it properly. That's why polish lancers cleaned clock of every other european cavalry during napoleonic wars.
>white
It's stupid american concept of people that can't trace their heritage or they are 56% white, kek. In Europe we are who we are.
>Speaking polish is a net negative.
I hope that you'll end up in special place in hell, where you'll be listening polish singers 24/7, with all those sz cz rz ż ć ś.
>That's because they sucked at being cavalrymen
Their cavalry was good enough to keep their country together, unlike someone else's.
>It's stupid american concept
Like i said, you should settle for that. Your other options are much more bleak. At least by being discount white you can have some of the credit for the things your nation's never acheived rubbed off onto you.
If it's got a sabre hilt it's a sabre in Europe, historical naming conventions are moronic. French called their pointy iron bar a sabre so i can call this one too.
>French called their pointy iron bar a sabre
Nah they called the epee (sword)
>I hope that you'll end up in special place in hell
I don't really think i'll ever go to poland, though.
>I don't really think i'll ever go to poland, though.
Oh yes, we are full, don't come here, brownie, unless you want some free shower, kek.
You keep calling me brownie but 've been telling you that the only thing standing between you being that brownie is an American misconception about the white race.
And I told you that we literally don't care if we are consiered "white", for we are native Europeans and we don't have to prove anything to anyone. Hell, I've read somewhere that some american organisation declared Slavs as People of color - which is great, we can have best things from both worlds, lol.
Reparations now! Pay up brown coloniser!
>And I told you that we literally don't care if we are consiered "white"
You should. Being "native European" without having any achievment to show for it makes you a disgrace that casts shame onto other Europeans, nothing more.
Your country at all existing today is wholly thanks to the whimsical decision of a bunch of Anglos.
Oh, we invented pierogi and saved your ass under Vienna in 1683, that's enough of achievements.
Cope mr. 56% white kek.
Shitskins have ruined plans for other shitskins numerous times. If all your contributions are one cavalry charge and some fried dumplings then i have to sadly concede that your average arab deserves the title of white more than you since even his contributions to the world overshadow yours.
Pierogies and kebab removal are pretty based, I'll grant you that.
>56%
American whites are very white, we just live next to a lot of mexicans, Black folks, slavs, etc.
>for we are native Europeans
*Eurasian mongrels
>The difficulty in understanding the Slav is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European but an Asiatic and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Slav than a Chinaman or a Japanese and, from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Slav has no regard for human life and is an all out son of b***h, a barbarian and a chronic drunk.
Now, anon. Slavs don't have a lot going for them but equating them with russians that Patton attributed the quote to is uncalled for. For all their flaws, russians occupy a special low place that among Europe's population only serbs can hope to reach.
>I hope that you'll end up in special place in hell, where you'll be listening polish singers 24/7, with all those sz cz rz ż ć ś.
Hell is full of slavspeakers. American English is the language of Heaven.
>it's a common knowledge that western cavalry sabre is a direct copy of late polish hussar sabre
Common polish autofellating fantasy, maybe. Not only is the polish sabre stolen from Austrians whose sabre was the basis for the light cav sabres on the Napoleonic era but these sabres were a short lived fad that quickly died out and everyone went back to the typical European sabres everyone had been using.
>I'm not "white", I'm true native 100% pure European, brownie
You're polish. You should settle for "discount white" because this is the best you can ever hope to get.
>but I do speak a foreign language
Speaking polish is a net negative.
Oh, and British heavy cavalry sabres even during the Napoleonic era remained completely straight.
>Oh, and British heavy cavalry sabres
That was the sword not the sabre though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_1796_heavy_cavalry_sword
>Common polish autofellating fantasy, maybe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_1796_light_cavalry_sabre
>An eastern influence can be detected in the blade form, and Le Marchant is recorded as saying that the "blades of the Turks, Mamalukes, Moors and Hungarians [were] preferable to any other".[2] The post 1630, knuckle bow hilted, fullered, Szabla, of the Polish-Hungarian Hussars, is often credited as Le Marchant's inspiration for the pattern.[3]
>one short lived British pattern for light cavalry
>Western cavalry sabre
Yes, polish autofellating is inversely proportional to their real historical achievments, therefore is incredibly strong.
>Germcucks
Leave us out of this ok. It's not a german who's insulting poles in this thread.
Btw. Germany got sabres from both hungary and poland, as local dialects prove. Dussacks were often called "german sabre" and are clearly influenced by eastern sabres, not vice versa.
Sorry, anon. You are right, I shouldn't involve you in this stupid argument.
>pole cannot comprehend Western straight sword superiority
just as predicted
>And don't make me laugh, brownie. Your hand, now.
Like i said, only after you post that toilet, janusz.
poland's historical impact on European development isn't worth the German shit that you rub away daily.
I reject your awkward and imprecise definitions as ESL and/or dysfunctionally autistic. A cut-and-thrust sword can be thrust-centric while having a capable cut or cut-centric while having a capable thrust. The Patton saber, for example, has a very capable cut but favors the thrust and was explicitly designed around a doctrine centered on the thrust--thus, thrust-centric, but can also be justly called a cut-and-thrust sword.
The older I get the more I understand Patton's disdain for slavs.
Patton doesn't know jackshit. People suck this guy's dick way too much.
>but muh Patton saber
Never used in combat. Designed for a style of combat that was already obsolete when he was making it
>but muh Olympic fencer
He was a pentathlete and didn't even medal
The only source for Napoleon saying that comes from Patton himself. Nowhere else.
>Patton doesn't know jackshit.
Olympian Master of the Sword sent abroad to study French doctrine for the Army, far more knowledgeable about and immersed in the cumulative cavalryman wisdom at the end of that era than anyone ITT.
>Never used in combat
I kind of wonder if it was ever drawn in anger by the China Horse Marines given the clusterfrick that was China in the Warlord Era. It's really a shame it never saw a proper cavalry charge, however.
>He was a pentathlete and didn't even medal
He was fourth among the pentathlon fencers, which is still world-class, and likely would have medaled in the event if they used moveable backstops on the pistol range to avoid scoring controversies like they do today.
>source for Napoleon
I don't read French but the opinion seems plausible enough given the trend of straight and less-curved cavalry sabers. I'll concede that I have no pre-Patton proof of it being a genuine Napoleon quote.
>Now, about Patton... It seems to me that he was trying to invent a wheel again
He wasn't. Other countries were already fielding straight cavalry sabers. You can read manuals on how they were used.
>He wasn't. Other countries were already fielding straight cavalry sabers. You can read manuals on how they were used.
I didn't say he invented "straight saber" first - I meant he was trying to invent new way of using blades in cavalry. In WW1 cavalry had pretty much limited usage, so I wouldn't attach importance to his ideas.
>I meant he was trying to invent new way of using blades in cavalry
He was trying to update US Army cavalry doctrine to be in line with what he perceived to be the best-developed cavalry doctrines of the time, not pioneer anything new. He even grounds his claims in lessons of antiquity and pre-history. You claimed that he was disregarding cuirassiers in direct reply to a post featuring a Napoleonic cuirassier with a straight saber in the French tradition which heavily influenced Patton's opinions on cavalry saber usage so I can only assume you're spouting half-baked contrarian nonsense for the sake of it.
Honestly speaking, I was talking about XVII century cuirassiers. Like I said earlier, in napoleonic era they were so rare, they could be left out.
>He was trying to update US Army cavalry doctrine to be in line with what he perceived to be the best-developed cavalry doctrines of the time, not pioneer anything new.
Ok, in short: did it work? Was it tested on actual battlefield?
Patton hadn't even been in active combat yet when he wrote all that shit lol
those all look like 16th century (i.e. 1500s) to me but maybe you just made a typo or something
i don't really care about the thread topic per se i just think swords are cool and I enjoy threads about swords
If thrusting is so superior, why does the rapier have edges?
So you can do the cool flick cut thing really fast. Looking cool is important, never forget that all of that history was made by people too, and they probably did a fair few things just because that's the way they wanted to.
>The cut wounds, but the thrust k-ACK
yeah but you can stab and thrust with other types of swords so would a rapier be better than pic related for example if both swordsmen are thrusting?
As someone that did fencing and some blood sport during my dumb student years... cuts are ok but thrusts are the kings class.
Anything without a basket and at least some ergonomic grip is disregarded. Same with long and heavy stuff. or thin ultra lights.
Heavy shortish pistolgripped rapiers style sword with a epee sleve that's where it's at.
>The cut wounds, but the thrust kills
Killing =/= stopping
Plethora of historical accounts of guys being mortally wounded with thrusts, but living long enough to kill the other in turn. Cuts are less lethal but more immediately debilitating. There's a reason why every fighting blade (barring specialized niche ones) is capable of both, even if there's a inclination for one over the other.
There's lots of historical accounts of cuts doing jack shit, because either the attacker rolled the edge, it hit some dense fabric or metal, the sword wasn't sharp enough or some other random factor. A thrust that lands with a weapon with a proper sharp and rigid point is pretty much guaranteed to skewer what you're hitting.
I wouldn't exactly say that cuts are more debilitating on average on per hit basis.
Did you not read the OP? The scenario is already specified.
>unarmored
>1v1 duel
>sword
>no off-hand equipment
Rapier wins. It's literally built for this shit.
the only problem i can see with teh rapier is that if it doesnt incapacitate immediately the wounded oppornent can just slash the rapier holders neck with his gigga falchion or whatever chopper while hes being stabbed by the rapier and then they both die in a draw
That's the reality of any sword duel, silly. Rapier just gives you the best chance at not letting the other guy walk away unscathed. There's also techniques of twisting or wrenching the blade after piercing to stop the opponent from doing exactly that, but they're generally not practiced since it caused excessive injury and therefore uncivilized.
rapier
you can also assume for the sake of argument that all the swordsmen will be the same strength and size. so chinks will be normal man size like a viking, etc. there is no disadvantage to picking a sword type based on the manlet wielding it. assume a body clone of the same person will be used for all the sword types only the mind will be different based on knowledge of how to wield that type of sword and tactics used
No
To make this more illuminating you should require that they be in popular use during the same time or give or take half a century.
Musashi was 6'1"
My penis wenis.
montante/zweihander/spadone/other big shit that outreaches everyone else
Probably the longest sword since everybody is unarmored. Maybe a "sword" that is actually a winged spear in disguise. I'm sure there must have been at least one.
>Maybe a "sword" that is actually a winged spear in disguise. I'm sure there must have been at least one.
swordstaff, glaive, naginata, podao, etc.
Ahh yes, the Sha. Used primary by Elite bodyguards of important ppl.
The longest sword that isn't unwieldably heavy/unbalanced.
Zweihänder, hands down.
probs a rapier, as it was designed to be a duelist's weapon
how accurate is this movie then?
>how accurate is this movie then?
I fricking hate gays who cant separate
>Something that could happen theoretically
with
>WOULD THIS HAPPEN EVERY TIME??? REALISTIC????? REALISTIC????????
It's realistic for you to get struck by lightning.
obvious correct answer is a thrusting sword because it can control your opponents weapon in ways no other sword can.
Probably a rapier or something similar. It only takes few pinholes to frick someone up to the point they can't effectively fight back.
but does a rapier have the mass to block or deflect a powerful swing from a heavy chopper? like against a great sword?
The idea for a Zweihander or other greatswords was to use them, armored, against polearms and other armored infantry. If you get hit with a giant chunk of metal, you're fricked either way. If you were in a duel with another guy who was unarmored parrying would not be your strategy in the first place if they brought a frick huge sword.
BUT it depends on the rapier. Some certainly could parry or block a larger weapon. Others would bend out of the way and you'd fricking die. Some rapiers were actually pretty beefy. Funnily enough, Scottish and British ones were the beefiest, and I would like to assume it was because they still had claymores around but who knows.
Rapiers are toys for dandies, they don't work against a proper longsword. You're probably going to post some shitty hema video of a guy with a rapier beating a guy with a longsword. Watch your video closely, and you'll notice that every single time that happens, during the whole bout the guy with the longsword doesn't even attempt to close the distance to the rapier guy, and the whole time he's fighting at a distance where he can be hit but can't hit the other guy. That's a skill issue, there's no other way to describe it.
>Rapiers are toys for dandies, you should use a lighter sword instead
lol, lmao
The results would be highly random no matter how autistically you try to cope and make everything "even". Sorry, real life is nothing like video games.
so you are saying a gladius would have just as good a chance as a claymore?
Spanish Montante for the size and reach.
Rapier and Buckler is the best for unmounted combat.
That sword is gorgeous. Does anyone know where it can be bought?
Rapier is the correct answer. Anything anybody else posts is wrong and/or trolling.
It's the only sword optimized for unarmored dueling. It's got plenty of reach and is relatively light. Also about as much hand protection you can realistically get on weapon that can still be labeled a sword which translates into more confidence in going for a bind. In the hands of a master that is quick, accurate, reading, and can win binds regularly, there's really no other sword that outclasses it in duels.
Nah. Greatsword > rapier. Rapier has constrains of been compact and light enough to be carried in the side scabbard so it's optimized within these constrains.
Greatsword is from unlimited league.
>Rapier has constrains of been compact and light enough
At thier peak Rapiers were like 4 feet long and weighed more than 3 lbs.
you're thinking of the colichmarde or court sword, which replaced the rapier when dueling was outlawed, but was used the same way
>court sword
>colichmarde
They were fully developed small swords. He's probably thinking about so called "transitional rapier" (I'm not sure about dates tho' - 1650-1680?) which was a direct ancestor of epee (small sword). The weapon was considerably lighter and shorter than full blown rapier motherfricker beast (up to 100 cm). It's a common mistake, because all "Three Musketeers" movies are using those rapiers, for they are... lighter and shorther and thus easier to work with on movie set. Surely REAL King's musketeers (circa 1620) were using either long rapierw (120 cm and more) or typical military blade of that time (side-sword or "military rapier", so arming sword functionally).
Pic related - transitional rapier.
>At thier peak Rapiers were like 4 feet long and weighed more than 3 lbs.
Yeah like longsword. Max you can carry In the side scabbard so it doesn't drags over pavement much.
Great swords are much larger than that. Only practical option was carry them on the shoulder and it wasn't practical as everyday carry.
P.S. Couple years ago Shad from shadversity invented back harness for swords/spears/bows but it wasn't known in the past.
Greatsword.
Late cavalry sword or epee-type rapier
Katana, hands down. The answer is always katana.
Bro.
Yes?
The sword...
And its user.
You said 1v1 unarmored. You don't need armor from a thousand miles away in an air conditioned office built into a shipping container.
you are autistic
I think a shipping container would count as armour.
Katana is the highest evolution of 2 handed sword ever devised or constructed. A joy to view and weild and an honor to die by!
Rapier.
heh... it seems my... blade is longer than yours.
>That name
Fricking pretentious Greeks.
fricking christ
>what is perspective
thanks for pointing that out anon, but adjusted for perspective it's just even more pronounced?
>he's 60cm tall
What's more likely, that perspective is just fricking up the proportions or that he is an ultra-midget?
read my second post again. it's adjusted for perspective; the length of straight lines can be measured and compared directly to other straight lines.
Rapier probably wins most often through luck alone. The capability to counter is unmatched, so any dodge can be instantly capitalized on with incredible consistency.
?si=wnvKRmmObxij5kDk
japanese animation
The sword gun clearly takes this contest every round
The longest swords would win.
So either a great word or a real rapier.
From atlatl to MIRV the answer is always "moar standoff distance"
Spear.
one of them big shits that is basically a spear
Rapier vs. greatsword is "whoever gets tired and fricks up first."
>rolled the edge, the sword wasn't sharp enough
Many of those anecdotes come from Revolutionary-Napoleonic times where soldiers were bumbling fricking idiots who didn't sharpen their swords. They'd also damage them by using them for camp chores or using them to roast meat.
In places where they actually knew how to sharpen, it was a non-issue.
>A thrust that lands with a weapon with a proper sharp and rigid point is pretty much guaranteed to skewer
What, armor and random bits of metal only exist when cuts happen?
Forgot to quote
>Many of those anecdotes come from Revolutionary-Napoleonic times
Sure, but it still happened historically during the other times and you can easily observe the same thing happening with people doing test cutting today. With less experienced people and expecially in a combat situation i can see it happening very often.
>What, armor and random bits of metal
I wasn't talking about armor. Post 17th century armor is a rare sight among foot soldiers. Soldiers tend to carry a lot of shit and their uniforms were often fairly ornate, with lots of ropes, buttons and other decorations, in addition to their personal belongings. Against all these, thrusts are far less likely to fail.
I'm still not convinced that cutting is any more immediately debilitating outside of edge cases like chopped off limbs/fingers.
>I'm still not convinced that cutting is any more immediately debilitating outside of edge cases like chopped off limbs/fingers.
The problem is you're assuming they're edge cases.
From Ravaton’s "Chirurgie d’armée"
>I saw so many sabre cuts to the extremities that it would be abusing the reader’s indulgence to report them all. I will limit myself by choosing those that seem the most interesting and the most proper to the instruction of young surgeons.
>Sabre cuts to the upper limbs, as well as the lower ones, can follow an infinite number of directions and form divisions more or less deep and wide. These divisions can only affect the skin, or the fat, the flesh, the vessels, the tendons, the bones and even take out the whole limbs as I saw many times.
>The problem is you're assuming they're edge cases.
"Lopped off his hand/arm/leg clean" is an edge case. A more typical cut wouldn't be nearly as debilitating. That's not to say that they are rare, they'd definitely happen quite often but using them as an argument in favor of cuts doesn't sound accurate to me. The surgeon himself points out that cuts can have effects of widely varying severity.
You don't need to cut off a limb to take it out of commission. If you cut through the muscles and the tendons, you're not using that limb anymore. Cuts to the abdomen would spill your guts out.
People wore just as much shit if not more in Medieval times and cuts worked fine then too.
>You don't need to cut off a limb to take it out of commission.
What i'm getting at is that this out of comission thing is far from guaranteed. It might cut deep and severely disfigure an opponent or it may lightly bruise them and do jack shit. So a statement like "cuts are more debilitating than thrusts" doesn't make sense in such context, because people only look at one side of things.
>People wore just as much shit if not more in Medieval times and cuts worked fine then too.
Actually they didn't, that's why the whole family of thrust oriented swords like the Type XV appeared. Same with the proliferation of wrestling and half swording techniques to control an armored opponent and bypass their armor. Plain, regular cuts didn't cut it against anyone wearing more than a basic gambeson.
>that's why the whole family of thrust oriented swords like the Type XV appeared
That's because of more advanced armor. Cutting swords worked fine against lesser or non-armored opponents. No way that whatever they were wearing was less cut resistant than 19th century fabric uniforms.
>Plain, regular cuts didn't cut it against anyone wearing more than a basic gambeson.
Dumb meme. Cultures that had maille and lamellar like Eastern Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, i.e. basically everywhere outside of Western Europe still heavily favored cutting swords.
>That's because of more advanced armor.
That's what medieval combat typically entailed. Otherwise, medieval clothing and equipment was much more scant than that of a 17th-18th century infantryman.
>Cultures that had maille and lamellar like Eastern Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, i.e. basically everywhere outside of Western Europe still heavily favored cutting swords.
They were way too poor to make and adopt it on the scale of European armies. In Europe basically full body mail suits appear in 11th century and beyond. As they become more common the cutting swords became less and less effective.
Yet cutting weapons remained popular even in western Europe through the age of plate and beyond.
Lots of combat in Europe still continued without much armor, various swords were made for various purposes like horseback use or hunting swords and some people simply finding cuts more natural and preferring to use those so they'd use the swords that suit them because being familiar and comfortable with your weapon is more important than some definite and very real advantages that a different type of weapon may bring.
>sharpening the swords? What a bloody nonsense i say!
Which book is that excerpt from? I'm having trouble finding it by searching "The Arming" and "The Sword."
the longest.
By that logic a 100 foot long sword would win any duel. moron have a nice day
is he wrong though?
If you could wield it, yes.
>34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to this thread; I have not come to bring peace, but an M1913 Patton saber.
>35 For I have come to set Anon against his OP, and a /k/ommando against his /k/omrade, and a shitposter against his effortposter;
>36 and a Anon’s foes will be those of his own homeboard.
>37 He who loves father or mother more than the M1913 Patton saber is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than the M1913 Patton saber is not worthy of me;
>38 and he who does not take his M1913 Patton saber and follow me is not worthy of me.
- Saber Exercises (1914)
OP here i just found this video and the first thing the samurai master noticed is the absurd range advantage from the longsword vs the katana
it seems like length is basically what would win the competition on a statistical basis (assuming you ran the duels many times until you got a stiatistically meaningful result). is this a good conclusion?
basically does it all come down to length only? like we know for sure on the extreme ends of the spectrum that a gladius would lose to pretty much everyone becuase it was never designed to be a stand alone dueling sword, it was meant to be used in tight formation with a shield and thousands of soldiers next to you. so obviously the shortest swords would lose on the whole in statistical modeling. it doesnt mean they could never win a duel because every fight can be unique and swordsmen all have different techniques and shit which could potentially catch an opponent offguard once or twice but they would definitely be at a disadvantage vs something like a longsword right? like if you ran 100,000 duels between a gladius and a longsword the longsword would win more than 50% of the time im pretty sure.
>big stick does *BONK*
Unrelated but does anyone know where I can get a bread basket hilted sword that is single edge?
Where might one get that exact sword? Really jiving with me
Before you can master the blade you must master the reverse image search.
>katana would be wielded by musashi
Who was able to completely mog a master Yari spear wielder
Being a master with a midlength weapon such as a katana or arming sword is overall better if you have understanding of how other weapons work
Weapons that rely on reach become nigh useless if the enemy is able to close in, granted that comes with its own difficulty, but a master midlength weapon user would practice exactly for this while also also being able to use it against short weapon users with ease