triangular and quadrangular swords and daggers are the coolest.

triangular and quadrangular swords and daggers are the coolest. blades that wobble all over the place are cringe, let me stick it to em

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >triangular and quadrangular swords and daggers are the coolest
    Why?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He can lick the blade without cutting himself

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they're way more rigid so they pierce better, better transferr of energy at the cost of slicing, which is shit anyway

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If you want a weapon meant for thrusting, why waste time and metal with sword when you can have a pigsticker on a rifle or a spear?
        Combining a sword with a spike seems like you're losing the best of both worlds. The wide range of motions including slashing which is shit apparently and the range of a polearm for a short spike with a handle.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I use my weapon for thrusting, ...your mom, if you know what I mean.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I do

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          why would I shoot people when I can poke them? the handle on a sword is better. also you can always attach the sword whole on a select few rifles

          Eh, piercing is more immediately deadly, but sweeps and slashes are generally easier to land. There's a reason rapiers and smallswords were civilian weapons while sabers saw battlefield use

          yeah because they were fricking rad for civilian use, and pretty. you can't carry around a polehammer

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The post you're replying to features saber hilted swords, meaning they were either carried by infantry officers or cavalry.
          Infantry officers believed they had more important things to do than carry a musket and fix bayonet.
          Cavalry shifted away from lances (and charges) during the pike and shot era. When charges came back they used swords since most countries figured it wasn't worth all the work to train a peasant to use a lance properly, and it stayed that way until polish lancers impressed Napoleon, and his french lancers impressed everyone else.
          There was a constant debate, across decades and countries, over whether the thrust or the cut was the best attack for cavalry to use. The thrust was argued to be more lethal, the cut was argued to be more powerful (and it's what the peasant naturally defaults to).

          As for OP's picture

          https://i.imgur.com/Yc6uLS7.jpg

          triangular and quadrangular swords and daggers are the coolest. blades that wobble all over the place are cringe, let me stick it to em

          that is a rondel dagger made for fighting in full plate armor. You need to wrestle your opponent until you get an opening to stab him through one of the weakspots on the back of his joints that are only covered by mail. If you're in a dense melee you might not have enough space to maneuver a polearm.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Eh, piercing is more immediately deadly, but sweeps and slashes are generally easier to land. There's a reason rapiers and smallswords were civilian weapons while sabers saw battlefield use

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That’s not because cuts are easier to land than thrusts, it’s because points must be extracted. With a cut you can incapacitate a man and then be immediately ready to defend yourself against his friend. With a thrust you have to pull your sword out of the target before you can do so. This is not an issue in a duel, but is in a brawl.

          Also rapiers could cut, it’s only smallswords that couldn’t because of their triangular cross section.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Also rapiers could cut, it’s only smallswords that couldn’t because of their triangular cross section.
            and that's why smallswords took over, it's just not worth having cutting in favor of thrusting. alsoo a hollowgrind triangular shape is easier to pull out than a flat blade

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Small swords took over because they were more fashionable and easier to carry, not because they were a superior weapon.
              >but muh thrusts are better
              >muh cuts don’t matter
              In a duel, in a duel where you’re not expecting to fight more than one person it’s superior. Moreover it was easier to make two matching sets of smallswords then it was rapiers because of the material required. Having equal weapons became an important part of western dueling culture towards the mid 1700s. During the renaissance people just came with whatever sword they brought themselves or whatever sword they had on hand when an impromptu “duel” (or brawl) occurred, as opposed to a matching set like was used later on.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >and that's why smallswords took over
              Smallswords took over in civilian fashion. Because laddies were nagging gentleman about huge rapiers tipping over things in their houses (Japanese were smarter about with two swords and leaving large swrod at the rack at their home entrance).
              British military sword when "smallswords took over" was pic.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Smallswords took over in civilian fashion
                no one used rapiers in a military fashion, but military cavalry used stabby swords

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >no one used rapiers in a military fashion
                quite a few people do, a whole lot if you consider the beefier military rapiers as rapiers. The spanish didn't bother with smallswords nearly as much as other nations and kept using rapiers much longer too, including as officer weapons in the military

                No it wasn't and no it isn't. Like [...] explained, the switch had more to do with having a weapon that was easier to carry around town all day. As far as stabs vs. slashes, it's very situational, but stabs are not inherently superior. If anything, slashing weapons are better suited for fights against unarmored townsfolk and uppity nobles than trying to precisely stab a vital organ in the middle of a frenzy. And if you are up against armor, it's probably on a battlefield anyway and you'd have a spear or other two handed weapon as your main.

                stabs and slashes are both very useful and only a swordsman that can use both can last in a fight. They are different tools for different situations and with different limitations. That said, thrust-oriented swords typically had the advantage over cut focused ones but the cutting swords remained very popular, especially among people lacking formal fencing training.
                >And if you are up against armor, it's probably on a battlefield anyway and you'd have a spear or other two handed weapon as your main.
                One reason for the rise of one handed swords in the 16th century and beyond are firearms, namely pistols that were quite effective if you're rich enough to afford one.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >thrust-oriented swords typically had the advantage over cut focused ones when fighting on foot
                forgot to mention that

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No it wasn't and no it isn't. Like

              Small swords took over because they were more fashionable and easier to carry, not because they were a superior weapon.
              >but muh thrusts are better
              >muh cuts don’t matter
              In a duel, in a duel where you’re not expecting to fight more than one person it’s superior. Moreover it was easier to make two matching sets of smallswords then it was rapiers because of the material required. Having equal weapons became an important part of western dueling culture towards the mid 1700s. During the renaissance people just came with whatever sword they brought themselves or whatever sword they had on hand when an impromptu “duel” (or brawl) occurred, as opposed to a matching set like was used later on.

              explained, the switch had more to do with having a weapon that was easier to carry around town all day. As far as stabs vs. slashes, it's very situational, but stabs are not inherently superior. If anything, slashing weapons are better suited for fights against unarmored townsfolk and uppity nobles than trying to precisely stab a vital organ in the middle of a frenzy. And if you are up against armor, it's probably on a battlefield anyway and you'd have a spear or other two handed weapon as your main.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >swords are better when they become spears
    yeah

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Speargay attempts not to shit up a thread that has nothing to do with his dildo collection challenge
      >Level: IMPOSSIBLE

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        project more, if you wanna talk about your dildos head to /soc/

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >project more
          Says the seething speargay butting in to a thread that doesn't involve him lol

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >seething
            kid you're not hiding it well

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *