As a sword? Most of those "practical" ones are just hiding the fact they're actually very poor swords (and usually barely even swords). A faithful historical replica will be infinitely better.
>A faithful historical replica
you do realize the sword in op is based off one of the greatest and most effective swords of all time except with modern steel, right? you do realize that modern steel is superior to steel of old, correct?
You do realize that a gladius is an ancient sword made with and for ancient metallurgy, and most things more recent will absolutely crush it in a swordfight?
Other than probably the lack of handguard (and even then justified as it was paired with a shield), there is nothing inherently terrible or inferior about the gladius design.
Gladii were made for fighting in tight shield walls. It is absolutely not representative of using one by yourself for everyday tasks or even self defense
I mean I could easily launch into a paragraph right now but there is really no point. You morons can run along now and LARP as highlanders or knights while your best friend screams lightning bolt and your fathers weep that his genes have reached a dead end.
Please do. I'm dying to hear how a truncated spatha is in fact the deadliest sword known to man, folded 1000 times in the pasta maker of Saturn himself
No, actually you are correct. The best practical sword in today's world would certainly be a claymore strapped to your back. Of course a crass and unrefined donkey such as yourself better not forget to equip your fedora. You'll need that +3 charisma as you adventure downtown to your local comic book shop.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Well if it wasn't obvious you had no real argument before, it's clear to see now
2 years ago
Anonymous
>arguing with a weeb or guy who thinks he's a knight or whatever the frick your little fantasy is
I'll pass.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't know where any of these delusions came from. Some dudes baying about the gladius like it's Jupiter's gift to man and anyone that questions it as the supreme Item gets the 'ol appeal to extremes treatment.
https://i.imgur.com/fsSjLVD.jpg
Convenient to wear, great cutting power, good hand protection, acceptable thrusting capacity, and durable enough for tool use. Certianly the best innawoods sword, and a respectable choice for a scenario where you're wearing it in an urban environment
This guy is right and it's basically a machete with some added provisions one wouldn't find on most brush clearing blades. That's all there is to it
No, actually you are correct. The best practical sword in today's world would certainly be a claymore strapped to your back. Of course a crass and unrefined donkey such as yourself better not forget to equip your fedora. You'll need that +3 charisma as you adventure downtown to your local comic book shop.
What's the point of debating the least embarrassing sword for modern use? It's like winning the special olympics.
There are some daggers reminicent in shape. I do wonder if there's a full explanation why medieval european daggers and arming swords are all tapered while ancient gladii are straight or even slightly leaf-shaped, I only have some vague theories.
Either way, if you can carry a longer sword than a gladius, and are in a space where you can use it, it will absolutely be better for fighting. If, however, you're in a tight room or hallway, a gladius (of the longer type maybe) and a shield might be one of the best weapon sets.
Broadsword = chop good, stab worse
Longsword = stab good, chop ok
Thats why. Stabbing and thrusting was more important especially as armor transitioned to plate
Romans hate plate armor, lorica segmentata. Over a thousand years before the swords you're talking about.
Leaf blades were to compensate for the quality of the metals (or lack thereof) at the time. That's why you see alot of them in early antiquity through to the empire but things move away from them as metallurgy improved
That's silly the swords they imported were leaf blades, there are multiple types of gladius, a few of them have leaf blades. Pugio daggers had leaf blades. You'll actually find Romans tended to lean away from leaf blades as they started to take bigger roles for cavalry over infantry. Usually the cavalry were considered higher classes (owning farms to breed horses outside the city) and this class distinction grew larger as time went on. Infantry was just what they could raise the most troops to equip easily so there are a lot more examples of infantry over cavalry for most time periods which people can find. Cavalry preferred longer (straight) blades.
Leaf blades were to compensate for the quality of the metals (or lack thereof) at the time. That's why you see alot of them in early antiquity through to the empire but things move away from them as metallurgy improved
Heavier blades that distribute the weight towards the tip and off axis, gave you characteristics better for chopping and more like an axe. Edge retention was really poor and the blades would bend easily unless they were fairly stout so they'd compensate by making them more effective choppers. The Egyptian kopesh is a pretty pronounced example of this
2 years ago
Anonymous
The weught ditribution and waist of the leaf shaped blades would had meant that they were more likely to bend, try again.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Except no it wouldn't, because they're thicker in the waist and become thinner towards the tip. This is t opinion or theory, this is pretty well established. Here's a good forum post about it
https://sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/58579/leaf-bladed-swords-created-first
2 years ago
Anonymous
Shame the forum post directly contradicts your claim that they were choppers then.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It doesn't? The guy called them slicing but as I said earlier, edge retention was shit and they knew that. He mentions needing the heft behind the blade and that's why. It's not so much chopping like an axe or slicing like a katana or saber, just maximizing what you can get out of materials like bronze
2 years ago
Anonymous
"Historical leaf-blades are usually thin-tipped and light. They aren't heavy hackers/choppers."
2 years ago
Anonymous
Really depends on the ones you mean I guess. Falcata's were much wider and had a thicker waist, pic rel. Kopis was much thinner and less not much of a chopper, but retained the profile for essentially the same reasons
2 years ago
Anonymous
>How did they compensate for poor metallurgy?
Numbers. Bronze weapons were better than iron, but manufacture of bronze weapons required different materials from multiple, far apart locations, where as iron was more abundant and only required one material
2 years ago
Anonymous
Were they really? I was under the impression that iron weapons obviated the need for bronze. Was it really just due to direct availability?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Tin is rare as frick, meaning the bronze age was basically just more stone age with a few bronze luxuries for the wealthy. Iron meanwhile couldn't at first really measure up to the better bronze items but it's bloody everywhere.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I see. That is interesting to note. As an aside since you seem to know more about metallurgy, can you comment on Damascus steel? I've heard many stories obviously about its incredible qualities, and read around briefly but I'd rather hear from someone that is more familiar how actually effective they were. Myth versus reality and all that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not him but:
While he's right about tin being rare, X age is generally defined by common tools and not weapons. Militaries have always been ahead of the curve so dudes in the iron age were using weapons that incorporated steel and so on. He's not outright wrong but I also don't think he's quite right.
As for Damascus steel, that's a can of worms. True Damascus steel, generally now known as Wootz, is a non-homogeneous crucible steel. This is not to be confused with pattern welded steel which was often known as damascened which was later conflated with Damascus because marketing. Damascus was once a big deal but not so much anymore because it's the current year and Bessemer was like 150 years ago.
>. I do wonder if there's a full explanation why medieval european daggers and arming swords are all tapered while ancient gladii are straight or even slightly leaf-shaped,
Gladius sword shape is for doing more damage during stabbing. It wideness into full width fast so stab would be leaving wide wounds. Comparing to pointy more tappered blade.
European arming swords are more tappered and narrower relatively to their width because of balance issues, wider blade would be too tip heavy. Also later narrower points were required for piercing mail armor.
>more damage during stabbing.
stabbing meat to immobilize muscles and puncturing lungs is a great thing to do, but a critical artery kills faster. The gladius is great, but it is short in length for its weight and the lack of reach is a big deal especially since a steel broadsword does everything better at the same weight.
>why gladius and bronze/iron age swords wide?
More material to make them sturdy because the metallurgy is inferior. Late european swords are very tough steels.
Also the thinner smallswords were more civilian designs and there were thicker military versions that were more robust.
Gladius is by no means a bad design, but it is heavier than it needs to be for its size. There are lots of WW2 era bayonets as large as a gladius.
Gladii were made for fighting in tight shield walls. It is absolutely not representative of using one by yourself for everyday tasks or even self defense
While you are absolutely right that gladii were used specifically in this fashion, that is not to say that it would not make for an excellent defensive weapon if used today. There is absolutely no reason why a short sword that is wieldy in one hand when used in a shield wall would not be effective as a self-defense weapon in a single-combat scenario. It is not as if the vastest majority of people are going to run into someone wielding a buckler and rapier. Are you really trying to argue that a similar bladed weapon such as the generally smaller machete is not an effective defensive weapon?
The Romans didn't fight in tight shieldwalls (usually). The Roman legionary fought in a loose formation with enough space to use his javelins, sword and large shield without being hindered by his buddies. Compare that to the Macedonian phalanx or Greek Hoplites who fought packed and had little room for swordplay.
If needed they would form up in a tighter formation if facing cavalry or needing to move quickly.
Thanks for reading my post.
>swordfight
you may need to look up the definition of practical, moron
>Sword doesn't need to do what a historical sword actually did because I don't intend to use it as a sword
Your double edged machete/wall hanger doesn't need a crossguard I'm sure.
Literally any other weapon. A stick, crowbar, bat, kitchen knife, frying pan, chair, pool cue, axe, hammer, bike chain, wrench, ect. Getting hit in the hands fricking sucks,so I'd rather not, especially since a crossguard doesn't reduce the easy of wearing a sword much at all
IIRC these were called "pioneer" or "pathfinder" sword-bayonets, and they are supremely practical tools. Better than a gladius in every way, especially if you can rig a way to mount one onto your rifle, which shouldn't be difficult.
>gladius would cut off limbs with a single cut and thrusts were always mortal >inflict such bloody blows that it freaks out professional Macedonian soldiers >muh meme bayonet was better
Kys and sage.
He's not. That's .45 stopping powah levels of moronation
2 years ago
Anonymous
Care to explain why?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>gladius can hack off limbs
ya I guess any sword could do that. Is it likely? Not really. That's a childish understanding of physics and physiology. Like Mexicans that talk up their glorified cudgel and say it can chop a horses head clean off in one swing. Pure pageantry >all stabs were mortal
Impossible to know, and also not likely to be true either. It was certainly deadly as a thrusting weapon, but such a blanket statement is completely meaningless >scared professional soldiers
Not even according to the Romans. It wasn't the weapon that scared the Macedonians, it was the way they were used. Phillip thought he had the Romans beat with his highly trained phalanxes, but they couldn't face every direction at once. Face to face with a Macedonian spear wall, it's not going to mean shit
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but such a blanket statement is completely meaningless
the Greeks, the ones with the hoplites and phalanxes, were reportedly shocked at the type of wounds the gladius caused in comparison to their spears, they were much more difficult to deal with
2 years ago
Anonymous
I can only imagine you read a quick excerpt of Livy as a kid and it filled your head with nonsense about the supernatural powers of the gladius and how it could do much more egregious harm than a spear of a similar width and many times the weight... Nevermind the fact that he was almost 200 years removed from the events he wrote about and authors of the ancient and classical era embellished flagrantly
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Impossible to know, and also not likely to be true either. It was certainly deadly as a thrusting weapon, but such a blanket statement is completely meaningless
An intestinal perforation was practically a long, slow death sentence, it is entirely feasible that it had a much higher mortality rate than they were used to seeing from short spear heads and chopping swords.
OP specified "most practical" you mouth-breathing moron. There are a lot of things you can do with a sawback bayonet that you can't do with a fricking gladius.
>Saving this shit thread with a shit post
I don't disagree that a machete is arguably the most practical sword like object but >walmart machete
implies that you think some $5 bullshit is going to hold up to anything and I can tell you from experience that it won't.
If you want a poorgay falchion then sink a little money into it. $30 ain't much.
>I suspect more people in Africa are killed by machetes than guns.
Those statistics are probably wildly skewed by the Rwandan Genocide, if they exist at all.
>If you want an axe sword, a falcata or kopis would be much better
Meme. Those swords were actually pretty thin and more similar to falchions in actual use.
A machete I guess? If you're specifying practical you must not intend to fight with it. And the most average run-of-the-mill long bladed tool I can think of is your ordinary boring machete that you can purchase at any hardware store.
>If you're specifying practical you must not intend to fight with it.
This. So much this. A sword is not useful for combat. I would much rather engage my foe with my walking stick. If push comes to shove I could fall back on my karate training (I took karate lessons from age 9-13) and yes my striking skills with my feet, elbows, and hands would devastate a sword wielder.
>One day I am beset upon by some scruffy-looking fellow >He is armed with a sword, the fool >Little does he know I watched The Raid: Redemption just last night
>One day I am beset upon by some scruffy-looking fellow >He is armed with a sword, the fool >Little does he know I watched The Raid: Redemption just last night
Heh...should of never come here
Pic related is what unarmed chads look like when they finally use their skills in a real life knife fight
Can one of you define practical for me in this context? Are we talking about clearing brush, outdoor survival, self defense, murder, backscratching, all of the above?
Id say it's all of the above. By which I mean, what is it you consider the most practical and why. Not everyone will agree on what is practical, what is necessary and what is unnecessary, and that's totally understandable
Convenient to wear, great cutting power, good hand protection, acceptable thrusting capacity, and durable enough for tool use. Certianly the best innawoods sword, and a respectable choice for a scenario where you're wearing it in an urban environment
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9041849/Blake-Davis-chased-Jett-McKee-samurai-sword-fear-girlfriends-life-jury-hears.html
Two can play at that game, baka
I suppose this meme sword would actually be pretty effective in the modern day, given that people generally aren't wearing any kind of armor. Even if they are, it's body armor to defend against guns and knives, so you can still slash at arms and legs. Being as light as a one handed western sword, while being wielded with two hands also seems advantageous, makes it quite agile.
Of course, the moment you're up against someone in riot gear and a shield, you're fricked.
If you're fighting people in riot gear with shields, you want an axe. The Norse figures this out centuries ago. Even if you don't kill them with the blade, you'll crush their bones and break their armor so as to hamper movement. Or alternatively, you bind up their arms and defensive weaponry with your axe, while your fellow man in the second line behinds you swings beneath their shields and cuts their fricking legs off.
There is a very well-known massacre the Nordics pulled where nearly all the dead had their feet chopped off.
Solo swords against a sword and shield user fricks the sword user unless they are excessively good. This is very well known in HEMA. Axe heads on long sticks is the way you get around this problem. Your swings will go right the frick through their guard and/or shatter their shield or break their arm. The Norse deferring to axes was part resource scarcity, part choice.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Your swings will go right the frick through their guard and/or shatter their shield or break their arm.
No they won't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ok.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I applaud you for not going full moron and doubling down on the inaccurate things you said.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>trust me bro, I larp
kek
2 years ago
Anonymous
I bet you have a very nice pussy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah. I gots a big ol' pussy. Nice and hard too.
Oh baby, it sure is something.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If you mean an axe head on a polearm, that could certainly be possible. Attacking in such a way that you chop downwards over their shield or pull it down, that is. There were some axes made specifically for that function. But you're not going to be breaking their arm or bashing through their shield, or rather those weapons were never made for that. Axes were much lighter than you think, and were generally made for extremely quick blows and not as mighty weapons to bash through an opponent's defenses. You could certainly use something like a felling axe as a weapon, but it would be extremely cumbersome and dangerous to the wielder for obvious reasons
Actually, katana are somewhat unwieldy in one hand. You can use them that way but the longer blade and its balancing makes it feel cumbersome on the wrist. The real reason that it's pretty effective is because it's an effective stabbing and great slicing weapon, so yeah it would frick up pretty much anyone that doesn't have a firearm in an open area. However, and this is pretty big, a katana is NOT a chopping weapon, or rather not an effective one. So unlike someone with a machete you can't unga bunga someone with it unless they're totally without any kind of heavy clothing. I mean, you can, and it will still work, but it won't be as effective.
There is also the obvious fact that a katana is extremely conspicuous and embarrassing so you'd never use it as compared to a machete, but that's beside the point.
I didn't say it was an effective one handed sword. I said that it has roughly the same weight and reach of a one handed (western) sword, yet it has a long handle designed for two hands, so you have a lot of strength and control over the sword, compared to a one handed sword of similar size and weight.
But like I said, this implies you're fighting an unarmored opponent.
As for the weapon's purpose, it's a cutting weapon. That's it. It's meant for slicing open unprotected flesh.
>doubt it
"Blaise Lewinson, also 17, stabbed Stefan Appleton with the 25-inch serrated blade as he lay helplessly on the ground in a north London park"
>doesn't realize 3% of Brits are like that now
Its 2022 anon, and times they are a changin'.
Hell, 9% of Britons are Asian.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>"Britons" >Asian, etc.
There aren't enough quotation marks in the world.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So your definitioon of "Briton" is strictly John, Paul, George, and Ringo or what?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why wouldn't it be?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because 1970 was fifty years ago, and there are now 5.5 billion more people on the planet?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, and their cultures from which they came from 50 years ago are still wildly different despite their place of birth. A wolf raised as a dog is still a wolf
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nah he's a good boy now, he's an innocent pupper, 13/10
>the Guardian >also the Guardian (specifically):
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/mar/22/face-medieval-cambridge-man-emerges-700-years-after-death >also the Guardian (generally): "British people" don't meaningfully exist because the history of Britain is one invading ethnogroup annihilating another after another, etc. >also also the Guardian (generally): British people being annihilated by hordes of dumb, ugly, violent foreigners is good, actually
>well what do you mean by practical >well can you define what you mean by practical
what the frick? do you fricking morons not know what practical means? Hey dumb frick, pic related is an example of something that is NOT practical. >"practical"
yeah really clever posts with the knives and the guns. wow. we are all so impressed with your wit and superior knowledge of the world. I put it in quotations just for you autistic pillow biters
Defining practical when it applies to such a nebulous context as "modern" is perfectly valid. Practicality depends entirely on what you'd use it for, and that can and usually is different depending on the person
Curved sabre, last time the swords were used in a serious role on the battlefield. Bayonets are only good if you plan to carry A full lenght rifle at all times.
>Curved sabre, last time the swords were used in a serious role on the battlefield.
so you think something used on the battlefield is >practical >modern
no. that's fricking stupid. at least you're not completely moronic and understand that a bayonet is also not practical because carrying a full size rifle is not practical.
sabres were carried as sign of nobility (much like katanas) - and were designed to fight unarmored/lightly armored enemies (keep peasant mobs at bay) and thanks to curved blade was effective in very close combat - able to gravely wound multiple opponents with one slash.
their use on battlefield was secondary as primarily it was status symbol (unless we talk about cavalry sabres that were much heavier and could take limbs or head with single chop routinely).
>Some idiot starts mouthing off at me >I whistle for my noble steed while at the same time challenging him to single combat >In one swift motion I mount my horse and charge forth >I yell sally ho at the top of my lungs while drawing my mighty sabre >He is dumbfounded and can only stand in pure terror as I draw forth >With one single motion I lean down and swing, beheading him and spraying blood all about >Dismounting, I call for the constabulary to clean this cur from the pavement
This is what I'd go for, if we're assuming that I don't need to conceal-carry for whatever reason. There's no armor to worry about really, so slashes are perfectly deadly. Good handguard, plenty enough reach, and easy enough to carry.
However, if "practical" means conceal carry too, then you can obviously only pick knives.
Probably a katana, if you want a sword.
Curvature makes it easy to swing and get good cuts and it's made for cutting down unarmored people, which is all you'll ever face.
Extremely lacking in thrusting capabilities compared to some alternatives. It's also pretty big which makes it not practical. And no, the curvature of the blade doesn't really do what you're claiming. And it was made specifically to counter armor at the time. Lol. Just get out.
Curved swords are easier to swing, you do realize you don't hack with a sword, do you? You swing and then pull, you make a cut. And you need to pull the sword in a straight line along the edge or it won't cut good.
The curvature of the blade makes this a lot easier and convenient to do. But you probably never cut anything with a sword in your life.
And no, Japanese swords do not actually perform well against Japanese-style armor, because the armor was designd to counter the sword, which has been around for much longer.
The Katana was mainly a self-defense weapon, not a battlefield weapon, similar to western swords. And it was mainly used in contexts where people weren't wearing armor.
Says the guy who thinks curved blades are superior to straight. You're a weeb. You're literally a mentally ill troony. And stupid.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the guy who thinks curved blades are superior to straight
I never said that, though? I said that they're easier to use, which is true unless you're just using it as a pointy stick.
in which case, just put a point onto a stick
> OP specifies a practical sword > moron suggests a 50" rapier of the sort that people in the 18th century had already begun to abandon precisely because it was impractical -- too long to comfortably wear, and too unwieldy unless you have a lot of hand and wrist strength and years of training. > Says that the 50" rapier doesn't require "a lot physical of strength" (lol) to operate.
/k/ has hit new lows.
The correct answer is some sort of sword-bayonet with a 19-21" blade. Short enough to carry. Long enough to mog daggers and knives. Can use as a machete in a pinch. Can mount to rifle as needed.
If you want a TACTICOOL sword that works in modern times, you're going to want a straight, double-edged blade which tapers to a point that is about 16-20 inches long. So pretty much a dagger that just keeps going. The blade also has to be thick to be of use for utility purposes as well. Otherwise, it's just pointless gear you have to hump.
So something like picture related, except without the gay acid wash "damascus".
If your opponent has neither a gun or sword, any sword will do. If you opponent has a sword just be better at wielding the one you have than them. If your opponent has a gun get a gun yourself or learn to serpentine.
A walking stick. You won't be cutting anyone in the modern world and if you need a blade for clearing you can tape it to the stick. Stick is best weapon it everywhere. Stick is best designed weapon can't be broken can only make more stick. Stick doesn't have any lead, mercury any dangerous metals. Stick also channels the will of the woods. Old carry stick, young carry stick, stick is God
For modern day Home defense in shitty countries and cites the best is a Saber with a 25-27 inch blade.
katanas and one handed sabers provide the best amount of control and blade length for you to effectively fight in your own home without having to Halfsword or forced to do simple and predictable thrusts
Longswords and Great-swords can be used in suburban and rural houses but if your there in the first place just use a gun.
Probably a cane sword. Multi purpose, concealed, camouflaged, can be used as a bludgeon, utility as a cane, kinda gay to carry a cane though. Kinda gay to use a sword as well though.
Because most soldiers are not going to be involved in using these as weapons, and a knife is a handy implement that can be used for a variety of functions and in the worst-case scenario as a weapon in the very off-chance it happens. Melee implements were obviated by the mass-adoption of firearms, and in the modern day there is absolutely no reason to plan for when you'll be within reaching distance of an opponent, so generally there is no use for a sidearm. Keep in mind that while some soldiers are issued sidearms, the vastest majority of them will not have something such as a pistol even. You're just not expected to get close enough where they will be at all relevant.
[...]
Because most soldiers are not going to be involved in using these as weapons, and a knife is a handy implement that can be used for a variety of functions and in the worst-case scenario as a weapon in the very off-chance it happens. Melee implements were obviated by the mass-adoption of firearms, and in the modern day there is absolutely no reason to plan for when you'll be within reaching distance of an opponent, so generally there is no use for a sidearm. Keep in mind that while some soldiers are issued sidearms, the vastest majority of them will not have something such as a pistol even. You're just not expected to get close enough where they will be at all relevant.
has it right, but I'd like to a couple of details.
Ghurkas maintain their knives as a tradition, and also because the khukri isn't meaningfully impractical compared to any other military knife. Does camp stuff fine, shanks motherfrickers fine.
Most military knives today draw their lineage through bayonets, and they have a pretty limited space for form factors too, so there's been convergence around that. Even when the lugs no longer exist, the knife shape remains.
Not only have battlefield ranges increased to the point where melee combat is not feasible, the doctrines for FIBUA have also changed. It is not likely you will assault a trench with enemy troops in it because enemies will manoeuvre away. If you assault a structure occupied by the enemy, modern carbines are very well adapted to doing so and can effectively engage multiple threats. There is no need for a fast-acting melee weapon as there was in WW1. Further, you will have tools such as grenades to clear areas of threat first, or at least give you an overwhelming advantage.
Katanas might unironically be the best answer here. >Designed specifically to be drawn quickly from any position >Thick spine and single-edged = fricks up people not wearing armor >Long enough to give you a significant reach advantage over knives and random everyday objects people might pick up in a fight >Short enough that isn't unwieldy to carry in everyday life or use indoors >Two-handed = better leverage in a fight >Actually used in the real world by millions of people as a successful EDC sword for 250+ years
>inb4 but muh thrust superiority
You're about 150 years late to the party, bro. Thrusts were a big deal in the sword schools of the Edo period, and late Edo katanas were designed to be good quite at thrusting >inb4 rapiers or longswords are better
Yeah, they are--in some situations. The katana is going to be better in other situations, and it arguably has fewer tradeoffs holistically. That said, I can definitely respect taking a rapier or longsword over a katana. >but muh gladius
Do you have a scutum to go with it? If so, it's a great choice. If not, then no
that video of a cop arresting and tazing an ATF agent has been making the rounds again lately, so I'm in a mood to forgive pigs a lot of their trespasses
A sharp piece of modern steel.
It doesn't really matter beyond blade length because you're not fighting against an armored opponent and probably not one armed with an equal melee weapon.
A falchion, cutlass, messer, hanger, wakizashi, smallsword, or ,briquet.
Basically something relatively small and designed for a close confrontation.
muh dick
>has been gripped by millions of men throughout history
Checks out
As a sword? Most of those "practical" ones are just hiding the fact they're actually very poor swords (and usually barely even swords). A faithful historical replica will be infinitely better.
>A faithful historical replica
you do realize the sword in op is based off one of the greatest and most effective swords of all time except with modern steel, right? you do realize that modern steel is superior to steel of old, correct?
You do realize that a gladius is an ancient sword made with and for ancient metallurgy, and most things more recent will absolutely crush it in a swordfight?
>swordfight
you may need to look up the definition of practical, moron
Other than probably the lack of handguard (and even then justified as it was paired with a shield), there is nothing inherently terrible or inferior about the gladius design.
Did these homosexuals not see the webm of the dude with a gladius get brained to death by a skateboard?
>Paging Mr. White Jeans
he wasn't wearing his galea
Someone post webm or link vid
Except that design was discarded and never used again.
I mean I could easily launch into a paragraph right now but there is really no point. You morons can run along now and LARP as highlanders or knights while your best friend screams lightning bolt and your fathers weep that his genes have reached a dead end.
Please do. I'm dying to hear how a truncated spatha is in fact the deadliest sword known to man, folded 1000 times in the pasta maker of Saturn himself
No, actually you are correct. The best practical sword in today's world would certainly be a claymore strapped to your back. Of course a crass and unrefined donkey such as yourself better not forget to equip your fedora. You'll need that +3 charisma as you adventure downtown to your local comic book shop.
Well if it wasn't obvious you had no real argument before, it's clear to see now
>arguing with a weeb or guy who thinks he's a knight or whatever the frick your little fantasy is
I'll pass.
I don't know where any of these delusions came from. Some dudes baying about the gladius like it's Jupiter's gift to man and anyone that questions it as the supreme Item gets the 'ol appeal to extremes treatment.
This guy is right and it's basically a machete with some added provisions one wouldn't find on most brush clearing blades. That's all there is to it
What's the point of debating the least embarrassing sword for modern use? It's like winning the special olympics.
There are some daggers reminicent in shape. I do wonder if there's a full explanation why medieval european daggers and arming swords are all tapered while ancient gladii are straight or even slightly leaf-shaped, I only have some vague theories.
Either way, if you can carry a longer sword than a gladius, and are in a space where you can use it, it will absolutely be better for fighting. If, however, you're in a tight room or hallway, a gladius (of the longer type maybe) and a shield might be one of the best weapon sets.
Broadsword = chop good, stab worse
Longsword = stab good, chop ok
Thats why. Stabbing and thrusting was more important especially as armor transitioned to plate
Romans hate plate armor, lorica segmentata. Over a thousand years before the swords you're talking about.
That's silly the swords they imported were leaf blades, there are multiple types of gladius, a few of them have leaf blades. Pugio daggers had leaf blades. You'll actually find Romans tended to lean away from leaf blades as they started to take bigger roles for cavalry over infantry. Usually the cavalry were considered higher classes (owning farms to breed horses outside the city) and this class distinction grew larger as time went on. Infantry was just what they could raise the most troops to equip easily so there are a lot more examples of infantry over cavalry for most time periods which people can find. Cavalry preferred longer (straight) blades.
Leaf blades were to compensate for the quality of the metals (or lack thereof) at the time. That's why you see alot of them in early antiquity through to the empire but things move away from them as metallurgy improved
How did they compensate for poor metallurgy?
Heavier blades that distribute the weight towards the tip and off axis, gave you characteristics better for chopping and more like an axe. Edge retention was really poor and the blades would bend easily unless they were fairly stout so they'd compensate by making them more effective choppers. The Egyptian kopesh is a pretty pronounced example of this
The weught ditribution and waist of the leaf shaped blades would had meant that they were more likely to bend, try again.
Except no it wouldn't, because they're thicker in the waist and become thinner towards the tip. This is t opinion or theory, this is pretty well established. Here's a good forum post about it
https://sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/58579/leaf-bladed-swords-created-first
Shame the forum post directly contradicts your claim that they were choppers then.
It doesn't? The guy called them slicing but as I said earlier, edge retention was shit and they knew that. He mentions needing the heft behind the blade and that's why. It's not so much chopping like an axe or slicing like a katana or saber, just maximizing what you can get out of materials like bronze
"Historical leaf-blades are usually thin-tipped and light. They aren't heavy hackers/choppers."
Really depends on the ones you mean I guess. Falcata's were much wider and had a thicker waist, pic rel. Kopis was much thinner and less not much of a chopper, but retained the profile for essentially the same reasons
>How did they compensate for poor metallurgy?
Numbers. Bronze weapons were better than iron, but manufacture of bronze weapons required different materials from multiple, far apart locations, where as iron was more abundant and only required one material
Were they really? I was under the impression that iron weapons obviated the need for bronze. Was it really just due to direct availability?
Tin is rare as frick, meaning the bronze age was basically just more stone age with a few bronze luxuries for the wealthy. Iron meanwhile couldn't at first really measure up to the better bronze items but it's bloody everywhere.
I see. That is interesting to note. As an aside since you seem to know more about metallurgy, can you comment on Damascus steel? I've heard many stories obviously about its incredible qualities, and read around briefly but I'd rather hear from someone that is more familiar how actually effective they were. Myth versus reality and all that.
Not him but:
While he's right about tin being rare, X age is generally defined by common tools and not weapons. Militaries have always been ahead of the curve so dudes in the iron age were using weapons that incorporated steel and so on. He's not outright wrong but I also don't think he's quite right.
As for Damascus steel, that's a can of worms. True Damascus steel, generally now known as Wootz, is a non-homogeneous crucible steel. This is not to be confused with pattern welded steel which was often known as damascened which was later conflated with Damascus because marketing. Damascus was once a big deal but not so much anymore because it's the current year and Bessemer was like 150 years ago.
>if you can carry a longer sword than a gladius
spatha
>. I do wonder if there's a full explanation why medieval european daggers and arming swords are all tapered while ancient gladii are straight or even slightly leaf-shaped,
Gladius sword shape is for doing more damage during stabbing. It wideness into full width fast so stab would be leaving wide wounds. Comparing to pointy more tappered blade.
European arming swords are more tappered and narrower relatively to their width because of balance issues, wider blade would be too tip heavy. Also later narrower points were required for piercing mail armor.
>more damage during stabbing.
stabbing meat to immobilize muscles and puncturing lungs is a great thing to do, but a critical artery kills faster. The gladius is great, but it is short in length for its weight and the lack of reach is a big deal especially since a steel broadsword does everything better at the same weight.
>why gladius and bronze/iron age swords wide?
More material to make them sturdy because the metallurgy is inferior. Late european swords are very tough steels.
Also the thinner smallswords were more civilian designs and there were thicker military versions that were more robust.
Gladius is by no means a bad design, but it is heavier than it needs to be for its size. There are lots of WW2 era bayonets as large as a gladius.
That has more to do with advancements in armor coverage and changing warfare tactics.
Gladii were made for fighting in tight shield walls. It is absolutely not representative of using one by yourself for everyday tasks or even self defense
While you are absolutely right that gladii were used specifically in this fashion, that is not to say that it would not make for an excellent defensive weapon if used today. There is absolutely no reason why a short sword that is wieldy in one hand when used in a shield wall would not be effective as a self-defense weapon in a single-combat scenario. It is not as if the vastest majority of people are going to run into someone wielding a buckler and rapier. Are you really trying to argue that a similar bladed weapon such as the generally smaller machete is not an effective defensive weapon?
Not him, but yes, he is. He probably waits in the parking garage outside pro wrestling shows to ambush blind french men because there can be only one.
The Romans didn't fight in tight shieldwalls (usually). The Roman legionary fought in a loose formation with enough space to use his javelins, sword and large shield without being hindered by his buddies. Compare that to the Macedonian phalanx or Greek Hoplites who fought packed and had little room for swordplay.
If needed they would form up in a tighter formation if facing cavalry or needing to move quickly.
Thanks for reading my post.
An example of loose and closed Roman formations.
Messer
>cross guard
yes this is definitely a must in modernity where other swords are around every corner
>Sword doesn't need to do what a historical sword actually did because I don't intend to use it as a sword
Your double edged machete/wall hanger doesn't need a crossguard I'm sure.
I would want a crossguard regardless, it protects your hand and grip from a lot more than just other swords.
>it protects your hand and grip from a lot more than just other swords.
Such as?
Literally any other weapon. A stick, crowbar, bat, kitchen knife, frying pan, chair, pool cue, axe, hammer, bike chain, wrench, ect. Getting hit in the hands fricking sucks,so I'd rather not, especially since a crossguard doesn't reduce the easy of wearing a sword much at all
Literally anything that could hit my hand.
Swiss sawback sword-bayonet.
Useful as a survival tool, as a weapon in its own right, and as a way to turn your rifle into a glaive.
IIRC these were called "pioneer" or "pathfinder" sword-bayonets, and they are supremely practical tools. Better than a gladius in every way, especially if you can rig a way to mount one onto your rifle, which shouldn't be difficult.
>gladius would cut off limbs with a single cut and thrusts were always mortal
>inflict such bloody blows that it freaks out professional Macedonian soldiers
>muh meme bayonet was better
Kys and sage.
That is 100% bullshit and I think you must know it
he's correct
He's not. That's .45 stopping powah levels of moronation
Care to explain why?
>gladius can hack off limbs
ya I guess any sword could do that. Is it likely? Not really. That's a childish understanding of physics and physiology. Like Mexicans that talk up their glorified cudgel and say it can chop a horses head clean off in one swing. Pure pageantry
>all stabs were mortal
Impossible to know, and also not likely to be true either. It was certainly deadly as a thrusting weapon, but such a blanket statement is completely meaningless
>scared professional soldiers
Not even according to the Romans. It wasn't the weapon that scared the Macedonians, it was the way they were used. Phillip thought he had the Romans beat with his highly trained phalanxes, but they couldn't face every direction at once. Face to face with a Macedonian spear wall, it's not going to mean shit
>but such a blanket statement is completely meaningless
the Greeks, the ones with the hoplites and phalanxes, were reportedly shocked at the type of wounds the gladius caused in comparison to their spears, they were much more difficult to deal with
I can only imagine you read a quick excerpt of Livy as a kid and it filled your head with nonsense about the supernatural powers of the gladius and how it could do much more egregious harm than a spear of a similar width and many times the weight... Nevermind the fact that he was almost 200 years removed from the events he wrote about and authors of the ancient and classical era embellished flagrantly
>Impossible to know, and also not likely to be true either. It was certainly deadly as a thrusting weapon, but such a blanket statement is completely meaningless
An intestinal perforation was practically a long, slow death sentence, it is entirely feasible that it had a much higher mortality rate than they were used to seeing from short spear heads and chopping swords.
OP specified "most practical" you mouth-breathing moron. There are a lot of things you can do with a sawback bayonet that you can't do with a fricking gladius.
These were hated by troops because when you plunge that thing into someone's body, the saw teeth get stuck on bone/skin/fricking air.
A polearm.
walmart machete
Hand and a half sword.
>Saving this shit thread with a shit post
I don't disagree that a machete is arguably the most practical sword like object but
>walmart machete
implies that you think some $5 bullshit is going to hold up to anything and I can tell you from experience that it won't.
If you want a poorgay falchion then sink a little money into it. $30 ain't much.
your holes will be wider in the morning
I got a machete from walmart 20 years ago, still cuts fine and never broke or anything. Used it to flip burgers once.
A well crafted machete. Cannot find numbers on it, but I suspect more people in Africa are killed by machetes than guns.
>I suspect more people in Africa are killed by machetes than guns.
Those statistics are probably wildly skewed by the Rwandan Genocide, if they exist at all.
Yeah, machete vs hands aren't really a fair fight.
I do not give dumb frogposters (you)s or red exclamation points.
Not really a sword and less practical in a modern context. If you want an axe sword, a falcata or kopis would be much better
>Not really a sword
Yeah I didn't say it was, that's a ~14" knife you dullard.
The threads about swords though...
...And...a...valid...answer...to...OP's...question...is...that...there...isn't...a...practical...modern...sword...
UwU
>If you want an axe sword, a falcata or kopis would be much better
Meme. Those swords were actually pretty thin and more similar to falchions in actual use.
So? It made them much better as fighting weapons
I'm just saying the idea that they were "axe-like" is incorrect. They were light and nimble slicers, nothing like oversized kukris.
something short like a gladius, machete, or katzbalger—depnding on your personal doctrine vis-à-vis stabbing vs chopping
A machete I guess? If you're specifying practical you must not intend to fight with it. And the most average run-of-the-mill long bladed tool I can think of is your ordinary boring machete that you can purchase at any hardware store.
>If you're specifying practical you must not intend to fight with it.
This. So much this. A sword is not useful for combat. I would much rather engage my foe with my walking stick. If push comes to shove I could fall back on my karate training (I took karate lessons from age 9-13) and yes my striking skills with my feet, elbows, and hands would devastate a sword wielder.
Alright Mr miyagi
>One day I am beset upon by some scruffy-looking fellow
>He is armed with a sword, the fool
>Little does he know I watched The Raid: Redemption just last night
Heh...should of never come here
Pic related is what unarmed chads look like when they finally use their skills in a real life knife fight
I mean if you end up in a knife fight you are going to get stabbed, that is just how it is.
The cheapest battle ready sword at Kult of Athena or a 20$ machete from Amazon
Can one of you define practical for me in this context? Are we talking about clearing brush, outdoor survival, self defense, murder, backscratching, all of the above?
Id say it's all of the above. By which I mean, what is it you consider the most practical and why. Not everyone will agree on what is practical, what is necessary and what is unnecessary, and that's totally understandable
Convenient to wear, great cutting power, good hand protection, acceptable thrusting capacity, and durable enough for tool use. Certianly the best innawoods sword, and a respectable choice for a scenario where you're wearing it in an urban environment
My dick
Unless you are going to find a good instructor just but a short spear.
Literally the only one with a killcount
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9041849/Blake-Davis-chased-Jett-McKee-samurai-sword-fear-girlfriends-life-jury-hears.html
Two can play at that game, baka
I suppose this meme sword would actually be pretty effective in the modern day, given that people generally aren't wearing any kind of armor. Even if they are, it's body armor to defend against guns and knives, so you can still slash at arms and legs. Being as light as a one handed western sword, while being wielded with two hands also seems advantageous, makes it quite agile.
Of course, the moment you're up against someone in riot gear and a shield, you're fricked.
If you're fighting people in riot gear with shields, you want an axe. The Norse figures this out centuries ago. Even if you don't kill them with the blade, you'll crush their bones and break their armor so as to hamper movement. Or alternatively, you bind up their arms and defensive weaponry with your axe, while your fellow man in the second line behinds you swings beneath their shields and cuts their fricking legs off.
There is a very well-known massacre the Nordics pulled where nearly all the dead had their feet chopped off.
>The Norse figures this out centuries ago.
No, they just didn't have access to enough steel to forge swords.
Solo swords against a sword and shield user fricks the sword user unless they are excessively good. This is very well known in HEMA. Axe heads on long sticks is the way you get around this problem. Your swings will go right the frick through their guard and/or shatter their shield or break their arm. The Norse deferring to axes was part resource scarcity, part choice.
>Your swings will go right the frick through their guard and/or shatter their shield or break their arm.
No they won't.
Ok.
I applaud you for not going full moron and doubling down on the inaccurate things you said.
>trust me bro, I larp
kek
I bet you have a very nice pussy.
Yeah. I gots a big ol' pussy. Nice and hard too.
Oh baby, it sure is something.
If you mean an axe head on a polearm, that could certainly be possible. Attacking in such a way that you chop downwards over their shield or pull it down, that is. There were some axes made specifically for that function. But you're not going to be breaking their arm or bashing through their shield, or rather those weapons were never made for that. Axes were much lighter than you think, and were generally made for extremely quick blows and not as mighty weapons to bash through an opponent's defenses. You could certainly use something like a felling axe as a weapon, but it would be extremely cumbersome and dangerous to the wielder for obvious reasons
Actually, katana are somewhat unwieldy in one hand. You can use them that way but the longer blade and its balancing makes it feel cumbersome on the wrist. The real reason that it's pretty effective is because it's an effective stabbing and great slicing weapon, so yeah it would frick up pretty much anyone that doesn't have a firearm in an open area. However, and this is pretty big, a katana is NOT a chopping weapon, or rather not an effective one. So unlike someone with a machete you can't unga bunga someone with it unless they're totally without any kind of heavy clothing. I mean, you can, and it will still work, but it won't be as effective.
There is also the obvious fact that a katana is extremely conspicuous and embarrassing so you'd never use it as compared to a machete, but that's beside the point.
I didn't say it was an effective one handed sword. I said that it has roughly the same weight and reach of a one handed (western) sword, yet it has a long handle designed for two hands, so you have a lot of strength and control over the sword, compared to a one handed sword of similar size and weight.
But like I said, this implies you're fighting an unarmored opponent.
As for the weapon's purpose, it's a cutting weapon. That's it. It's meant for slicing open unprotected flesh.
That reminds me of that guy on the bus who had a katana and used it to stop a fight
I always wondered what chang gets paid to design these geometric disasters
God imagine being killed by that fricking thing.
Why are the Brits like this?
>Brit
>hacking someone to death in broad daylight with a machete
doubt it
>doubt it
"Blaise Lewinson, also 17, stabbed Stefan Appleton with the 25-inch serrated blade as he lay helplessly on the ground in a north London park"
>
>doesn't realize 3% of Brits are like that now
Its 2022 anon, and times they are a changin'.
Hell, 9% of Britons are Asian.
>"Britons"
>Asian, etc.
There aren't enough quotation marks in the world.
So your definitioon of "Briton" is strictly John, Paul, George, and Ringo or what?
Why wouldn't it be?
Because 1970 was fifty years ago, and there are now 5.5 billion more people on the planet?
Yes, and their cultures from which they came from 50 years ago are still wildly different despite their place of birth. A wolf raised as a dog is still a wolf
Nah he's a good boy now, he's an innocent pupper, 13/10
Yes. And I'm tired of pretending it's not.
BTW here's the first British man!
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britons-dark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals
>the Guardian
>also the Guardian (specifically):
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/mar/22/face-medieval-cambridge-man-emerges-700-years-after-death
>also the Guardian (generally): "British people" don't meaningfully exist because the history of Britain is one invading ethnogroup annihilating another after another, etc.
>also also the Guardian (generally): British people being annihilated by hordes of dumb, ugly, violent foreigners is good, actually
Pretty sure that's been edited from the original
>Asian
lol. lmao
>as he lay helplessly
Was he passed out on drugs or something?
If you mount someone and you have a knife they are totally fricked, so I guess it's apt.
source, in case you had any doubt
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/teenager-guilty-zombie-killer-machete-19174412
>he chased a guy down and killed him with this in a public park in broad daylight
>9 years for manslaughter, innocent of murder
I have that. Bought it purely for meme potential. Glad to see it's actually useful.
its an ok machete but the tip bends/breaks easily. a regular machete would be better for bushwork
>bend the tip
Just aim your swing better?
Leave the tip for thrusting only
The Roman Gladius.
Still killing shitskins thousands of years later.
Kek I have this same Cold Steel gladius shaped machete, I like it, it's quite good for the cost
This is the only correct answer.
Also, some Black Lagoon for good measure.
As if this isn't the correct answer here.
>well what do you mean by practical
>well can you define what you mean by practical
what the frick? do you fricking morons not know what practical means? Hey dumb frick, pic related is an example of something that is NOT practical.
>"practical"
yeah really clever posts with the knives and the guns. wow. we are all so impressed with your wit and superior knowledge of the world. I put it in quotations just for you autistic pillow biters
Defining practical when it applies to such a nebulous context as "modern" is perfectly valid. Practicality depends entirely on what you'd use it for, and that can and usually is different depending on the person
yeah i'd suppose a homosexual moron like yourself might use a sword to open a paint can or tickle your prostate
How can you fit all those syllables in such a small brain
the belt sword...
Something practical, modern, sharp and pointy with some length for stand off.
>What's the best "practical" modern sword?
bayonet at the end of the rifle
might be the only respectable post in this clusterfrick of a thread
that's the cold steel one right? I have it. it feels really heavy.
Yes, it's the Cold Steel 1917 cutlass.
It's no lightweight.
then it's a piece of shit because a sword like that should be lightweight
Curved sabre, last time the swords were used in a serious role on the battlefield. Bayonets are only good if you plan to carry A full lenght rifle at all times.
>Curved sabre, last time the swords were used in a serious role on the battlefield.
so you think something used on the battlefield is
>practical
>modern
no. that's fricking stupid. at least you're not completely moronic and understand that a bayonet is also not practical because carrying a full size rifle is not practical.
moron, a 24" sword-bayonet with a 19" blade is comparable in size to a machete, but much more useful. Better at thrusting, more versatile, etc.
>machete
what? are you referring to the gladius as a machete? you fricking moron the gladius would out thrust your dumbass bayonet tenfold
the bayonet is at the end of a rifle
the topic of this thread is swords you dumb Black person. not bayonets and not rifles
you should read it more carefully
>What's the best "practical" modern sword?
the answer is bayonet at the end of a rifle
that's neither a sword nor practical
congratulations on being one dumb motherfricker
actual subhuman garbage take, you probably work for the government
sabres were carried as sign of nobility (much like katanas) - and were designed to fight unarmored/lightly armored enemies (keep peasant mobs at bay) and thanks to curved blade was effective in very close combat - able to gravely wound multiple opponents with one slash.
their use on battlefield was secondary as primarily it was status symbol (unless we talk about cavalry sabres that were much heavier and could take limbs or head with single chop routinely).
oh yeah I know a bunch of guys who routinely get into cavalry charges so yeah that would make a great practical sword
>Some idiot starts mouthing off at me
>I whistle for my noble steed while at the same time challenging him to single combat
>In one swift motion I mount my horse and charge forth
>I yell sally ho at the top of my lungs while drawing my mighty sabre
>He is dumbfounded and can only stand in pure terror as I draw forth
>With one single motion I lean down and swing, beheading him and spraying blood all about
>Dismounting, I call for the constabulary to clean this cur from the pavement
Alright I’ll bite. Why is carrying a full sized rifle not practical for the average grunt/person?
This is what I'd go for, if we're assuming that I don't need to conceal-carry for whatever reason. There's no armor to worry about really, so slashes are perfectly deadly. Good handguard, plenty enough reach, and easy enough to carry.
However, if "practical" means conceal carry too, then you can obviously only pick knives.
it's a very small sword shaped like pic related that has an explosive detonated behind it to propel it very fast into your opponent.
so like this, but with a gladius instead of a katana
yes, that sounds eminently practical
Not as good as a gun that shoots folding swords, sorry
Fwocka fwocka fwocka fwocka fwocka fwocka
Probably a katana, if you want a sword.
Curvature makes it easy to swing and get good cuts and it's made for cutting down unarmored people, which is all you'll ever face.
Extremely lacking in thrusting capabilities compared to some alternatives. It's also pretty big which makes it not practical. And no, the curvature of the blade doesn't really do what you're claiming. And it was made specifically to counter armor at the time. Lol. Just get out.
Curved swords are easier to swing, you do realize you don't hack with a sword, do you? You swing and then pull, you make a cut. And you need to pull the sword in a straight line along the edge or it won't cut good.
The curvature of the blade makes this a lot easier and convenient to do. But you probably never cut anything with a sword in your life.
And no, Japanese swords do not actually perform well against Japanese-style armor, because the armor was designd to counter the sword, which has been around for much longer.
The Katana was mainly a self-defense weapon, not a battlefield weapon, similar to western swords. And it was mainly used in contexts where people weren't wearing armor.
You were told to get out, weeb.
Shame I don't value your opinion, buddy.
Says the guy who thinks curved blades are superior to straight. You're a weeb. You're literally a mentally ill troony. And stupid.
>the guy who thinks curved blades are superior to straight
I never said that, though? I said that they're easier to use, which is true unless you're just using it as a pointy stick.
in which case, just put a point onto a stick
>lightweight
>long reach
>doesn't require a lot physical of strength to operate
>long reach
Yes, because it is long and not practical.
> OP specifies a practical sword
> moron suggests a 50" rapier of the sort that people in the 18th century had already begun to abandon precisely because it was impractical -- too long to comfortably wear, and too unwieldy unless you have a lot of hand and wrist strength and years of training.
> Says that the 50" rapier doesn't require "a lot physical of strength" (lol) to operate.
/k/ has hit new lows.
The correct answer is some sort of sword-bayonet with a 19-21" blade. Short enough to carry. Long enough to mog daggers and knives. Can use as a machete in a pinch. Can mount to rifle as needed.
need that webm of count dooku explaining how much you have to commit to using one of those rapiers during his three musketeers movie.
If you want a TACTICOOL sword that works in modern times, you're going to want a straight, double-edged blade which tapers to a point that is about 16-20 inches long. So pretty much a dagger that just keeps going. The blade also has to be thick to be of use for utility purposes as well. Otherwise, it's just pointless gear you have to hump.
So something like picture related, except without the gay acid wash "damascus".
Yeah, we already established that the gladius is best. Now we're just policing the morons and weebs.
If your opponent has neither a gun or sword, any sword will do. If you opponent has a sword just be better at wielding the one you have than them. If your opponent has a gun get a gun yourself or learn to serpentine.
A walking stick. You won't be cutting anyone in the modern world and if you need a blade for clearing you can tape it to the stick. Stick is best weapon it everywhere. Stick is best designed weapon can't be broken can only make more stick. Stick doesn't have any lead, mercury any dangerous metals. Stick also channels the will of the woods. Old carry stick, young carry stick, stick is God
okay now hit someone with a stick while grappling with them
oh wait you can't lmao
Grappling with men? Sounds gay, stick keeps men away by being stick. They can grapple deez instead
the cringe is really being stepped up ITT now
Little John go home, you are drunk
>assassinates your leadership
Nothing personal, kid.
>Le XD ninja missile post
Seething sand Black person
If I was from shifting sand land then I'd be way better at running.
Gay
t. seething cringe lord
t. cringing seethe lord
that'd be nice if it actually happened
For modern day Home defense in shitty countries and cites the best is a Saber with a 25-27 inch blade.
katanas and one handed sabers provide the best amount of control and blade length for you to effectively fight in your own home without having to Halfsword or forced to do simple and predictable thrusts
Longswords and Great-swords can be used in suburban and rural houses but if your there in the first place just use a gun.
Probably a cane sword. Multi purpose, concealed, camouflaged, can be used as a bludgeon, utility as a cane, kinda gay to carry a cane though. Kinda gay to use a sword as well though.
Latin Machete
the practicality is that it is a useful tool.
I haven't got around to watching the whole video. But this guy actually made a video about this.
The older triangle bayonet and sword bayonet
both longer than the current Bayonets that are mounted on the M16/M4
Because most soldiers are not going to be involved in using these as weapons, and a knife is a handy implement that can be used for a variety of functions and in the worst-case scenario as a weapon in the very off-chance it happens. Melee implements were obviated by the mass-adoption of firearms, and in the modern day there is absolutely no reason to plan for when you'll be within reaching distance of an opponent, so generally there is no use for a sidearm. Keep in mind that while some soldiers are issued sidearms, the vastest majority of them will not have something such as a pistol even. You're just not expected to get close enough where they will be at all relevant.
This guy
has it right, but I'd like to a couple of details.
Ghurkas maintain their knives as a tradition, and also because the khukri isn't meaningfully impractical compared to any other military knife. Does camp stuff fine, shanks motherfrickers fine.
Most military knives today draw their lineage through bayonets, and they have a pretty limited space for form factors too, so there's been convergence around that. Even when the lugs no longer exist, the knife shape remains.
Not only have battlefield ranges increased to the point where melee combat is not feasible, the doctrines for FIBUA have also changed. It is not likely you will assault a trench with enemy troops in it because enemies will manoeuvre away. If you assault a structure occupied by the enemy, modern carbines are very well adapted to doing so and can effectively engage multiple threats. There is no need for a fast-acting melee weapon as there was in WW1. Further, you will have tools such as grenades to clear areas of threat first, or at least give you an overwhelming advantage.
>What's the best "practical" modern sword?
Katanas might unironically be the best answer here.
>Designed specifically to be drawn quickly from any position
>Thick spine and single-edged = fricks up people not wearing armor
>Long enough to give you a significant reach advantage over knives and random everyday objects people might pick up in a fight
>Short enough that isn't unwieldy to carry in everyday life or use indoors
>Two-handed = better leverage in a fight
>Actually used in the real world by millions of people as a successful EDC sword for 250+ years
>inb4 but muh thrust superiority
You're about 150 years late to the party, bro. Thrusts were a big deal in the sword schools of the Edo period, and late Edo katanas were designed to be good quite at thrusting
>inb4 rapiers or longswords are better
Yeah, they are--in some situations. The katana is going to be better in other situations, and it arguably has fewer tradeoffs holistically. That said, I can definitely respect taking a rapier or longsword over a katana.
>but muh gladius
Do you have a scutum to go with it? If so, it's a great choice. If not, then no
>not having a 3A-rated scutum
Man, that's a sexy shield.
cops don't do testudo with it, which makes them gay. which makes that shield for gays
that video of a cop arresting and tazing an ATF agent has been making the rounds again lately, so I'm in a mood to forgive pigs a lot of their trespasses
Incredibly cathartic.
Idk if it's technically a sword or a knife, but the machete seems fairly practical
The one that's still in use?
>things shitskins still use are obviously the best
lol okay
That one you posted looks pretty good.
On another note, anyone have a proper ceremonial sword?
https://guthriewoods.com/product/royal-canadian-navy-officers-sword-271-n/
A sharp piece of modern steel.
It doesn't really matter beyond blade length because you're not fighting against an armored opponent and probably not one armed with an equal melee weapon.
A falchion, cutlass, messer, hanger, wakizashi, smallsword, or ,briquet.
Basically something relatively small and designed for a close confrontation.
If I had more money than sense I'd get one of these to swing around and slice watermelons with.
It's a "modern sword" made of CPM-3V steel.
Might be cool if they didn't try to make it look like a tachi
>no handguard
it's shit
it's shit but not why you think