| Author |
Message |
|
Sancar O.
|
 Posted: Sat 08 Nov, 2014 12:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
As said above, to be able to choose the right weapon, first we must determine the specifications of the scenario. For sake of this discussion I imagine a world exactly the same as our contemporary world, that just every kind of missile weapons just vanished or banned or fell out of fashion one day and people started openly carrying and using bladed weapons again. In that case most violence is to be expected either in the sidewalks of crowded cities, or narrow back alleys; or indoors of modern buildings which have low sealing and narrow corridors and lots of furniture and stuff. I also assume there are no armour.
For outdoors I would carry a spear, a pollaxe or partizan type poleweapon that is not taller than me which have both thrusting and cutting abilities. Because it is of average height of a person, it wouldn't be too much of a trouble once get used to it. People used to carry staffs and walking sticks all the time until recent times. And it's thrusting from a relatively safe distance is a great advantage while fighting on a narrow street or corridors of a modern building.
For indoors, movement limitations will determine the weapon. As fellow sword enthusiasts, I'm sure you have tried to swing a sword in your homes at least once. I know from experience (gained by damaging some furniture) that it is not a good idea. Forget about a rapier or a long sword, even an average length sword or saber would be hard to use. So, what you need is a short sword or long dagger type of blade that you can cut and thrust with and carry on your person. Every culture has its own version(bowie knives, kodachis, daggers, kukris, kindjals, qaddaras etc.) so you can choose the one you like most.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Nov, 2014 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Robert Morgan wrote: | | Quote: | | Against a short sword, the difference in reach makes it much safer for the longsword. |
Except that the buckler or heater shield can block the longsword, leaving the arming/short sword free to attack. Obviously, this is as much an issue of skill as anything else, but I'd rate the contest as equal, all other things being equivalent. |
As already said, I think arming sword and buckler is about equal with longsword, at least with a longish arming sword. I don't think a larger shield helps much, if at all, in single combat. But even with a shield, I'd still rate longsword as better than shortsword (less overwhelmingly superior than against short sword alone, with no buckler/shield, but still better).
I've not tried against large centre-gripped shields, but I don't think that makes that much difference compared to bucklers or large forearm-strapped shields.
| Robert Morgan wrote: | | Else, why did the single handed sword persist so long into the 15th century? Combined with a proper shield and with proper skill, it was the equal of the longsword in single combat. That was the key, of course - single combat. In a combined arms or melee situation, the result might be far different. |
Ease of carry has a lot to do with it, IMO. If you wear your sword every day, and fight with it a few times in your life, ease of carry matters. Fashion matters, too. It's not all about pure effectiveness in combat. (But being single-handed has many advantages (consider using it on horseback, for example).)
Again, if combat effectiveness was all that mattered, it would all be spears and other polearms.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
 |
|
|
Robert Morgan
Location: Sunny SoCal Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Nov, 2014 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would agree with the ease of carry issue were we only speaking about common men at arms and archers. However, even nobles and royals like Henry V, El Cid, etc., often carried single handers. They possessed the manpower to carry whatever they wished, yet they as often as not preferred single handers, even when fighting on foot, and when two handers of whatever contemporary Oakeshott type were available. That indicates a preference for the handiness and effectiveness of an arming sword of whatever era, in many circumstances. And, since nobles and royals often had the time to choose their kit before combat, well..
I'm not saying that the longsword wasn't effective. It was, whether a XIIA, XIIIA or later near-Renaissance sword. It just wasn't the end all and be all, especially in a home defense situation like the the thread starter posited.
| Quote: | | Again, if combat effectiveness was all that mattered, it would all be spears and other polearms. |
Except that late medieval and Renaissance longswords were used with great effect to decapitate polearms, rendering them ineffective. For every weapon there is a counter. I think that's really the lesson of this discussion. None of us are really right and none of us are really wrong. Combat effectiveness depends upon skill, and upon bringing the right weapon to the right battlefield at the right time. Having said that, I'll take a single handed sword and shield in most circumstances, but a longsword in a few others. It all depends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph Grinly
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Nov, 2014 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe something that WAS actually designed for that sort of situation in mind ? The Dutch " Kelewang" short cutlass - or what's made today and sold as the US M1917 cutlass ?. Fairly short, with a decent shell guard for hand protection and not too expensive
ColdSteel make a version ( http://www.coldsteel.com/Product/88CS/1917_CUTLASS.aspx) as do several others. I don't know who makes the best quality, or most historically correct one though.
There's one thing to consider in the sort of situation you envision. To most of us (Westerners), a machete is a TOOL , meant for tool-like jobs. - whereas a sword is a WEAPON, meant for one obvious job - hurting fellow humans. To Westerners, seeing a WEAPON produces a different reaction to seeing a tool. A weapon has a deeper physcological effect. You MAY get by, legally with carrying and using a tool for self defence. However a weapon is a whole different kettle of fish. In Third World countries, things may be different again. In the Third World, to the locals, the Tool vs Weapon distinction may be blurrier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Nov, 2014 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ralph Grinly wrote: | Maybe something that WAS actually designed for that sort of situation in mind ? The Dutch " Kelewang" short cutlass - or what's made today and sold as the US M1917 cutlass ?. Fairly short, with a decent shell guard for hand protection and not too expensive
ColdSteel make a version ( http://www.coldsteel.com/Product/88CS/1917_CUTLASS.aspx) as do several others. I don't know who makes the best quality, or most historically correct one though.
There's one thing to consider in the sort of situation you envision. To most of us (Westerners), a machete is a TOOL , meant for tool-like jobs. - whereas a sword is a WEAPON, meant for one obvious job - hurting fellow humans. To Westerners, seeing a WEAPON produces a different reaction to seeing a tool. A weapon has a deeper physcological effect. You MAY get by, legally with carrying and using a tool for self defence. However a weapon is a whole different kettle of fish. In Third World countries, things may be different again. In the Third World, to the locals, the Tool vs Weapon distinction may be blurrier. |
i disagree with that, a machete is something most people at tleast the ones i know, associate as more of a weapon.. largely as a result of homocides and assults carried out with machetes.
as for me... i think a kind of kukri or bolo like this http://www.thegurkhamuseum.co.uk/dyn/collecti...pal_19.jpg with one VERY crucial added feature, in this case a knuckle guard.. perhaps something like a kopis.
for the general cityh streets id actually choose a rapier because it , apparently was a well liked weapon and used very much for urban encounters.
however. im surprised that noone has mentioned blades like the yataghan...
everyone seems to have latched onto using arming swords...
|
|
 |
|
|
William P
|
|
|
|
|
Hector A.
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Nov, 2014 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Hector A. wrote: | | Charles B McFadden wrote: | Seems to me like X or XIV would be most suited. I don't think most people would use a sword to thrust though, even if it had a perfectly capable design for it. It seems that instinctively for defense or attack when someone uses a large bladed weapon, they start wildly hacking with. So edge use seems more natural.
From what I have now read about the "X" type of sword, they seem designed for this. |
Type XII is better then X at cutting clothing with the tip, the tip is stiffer and thinner, so naturally better on soft targets. X types will have more resistant edges at the tip because they are thicker, but also cuts less aggressively soft targets.
In a modern scenario there are only soft targets, sometimes thick soft targets. |
How thick are XII near the tip? About 2-3mm looks usual for X. Are XII that much thinner? |
Can't tell you for sure don't have any calipers at hand but my Knightly is thinner than the Norman.
Also the stiffness factor is important, type XII are considerably stiffer in the tip, most people think it was a design developed to face chain armor, i disagree strongly, having tested it on chain and others having done the same, our results always coincide, the tip of a XII DOES NOT PENETRATE chain, even in half sword position... These swords where more likely to have been developed to cut and pierce big bundles of fabric, like early gambesons of its time, that were the main defense at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will Taylor
Location: Charleston Joined: 08 Nov 2014
Posts: 1
|
|
|
|
|
Harry Marinakis
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Nov, 2014 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree, Type X.
Big, beefy hacker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Nov, 2014 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hector A. wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Hector A. wrote: | | Charles B McFadden wrote: | Seems to me like X or XIV would be most suited. I don't think most people would use a sword to thrust though, even if it had a perfectly capable design for it. It seems that instinctively for defense or attack when someone uses a large bladed weapon, they start wildly hacking with. So edge use seems more natural.
From what I have now read about the "X" type of sword, they seem designed for this. |
Type XII is better then X at cutting clothing with the tip, the tip is stiffer and thinner, so naturally better on soft targets. X types will have more resistant edges at the tip because they are thicker, but also cuts less aggressively soft targets.
In a modern scenario there are only soft targets, sometimes thick soft targets. |
How thick are XII near the tip? About 2-3mm looks usual for X. Are XII that much thinner? |
Can't tell you for sure don't have any calipers at hand but my Knightly is thinner than the Norman.
Also the stiffness factor is important, type XII are considerably stiffer in the tip, most people think it was a design developed to face chain armor, i disagree strongly, having tested it on chain and others having done the same, our results always coincide, the tip of a XII DOES NOT PENETRATE chain, even in half sword position... These swords where more likely to have been developed to cut and pierce big bundles of fabric, like early gambesons of its time, that were the main defense at the time. |
Stiffer would require thicker, given that there isn't much difference in the profiles of the tips. I was wondering about the thickness because the earlier termination of the fuller suggests that the XII might thin much earlier, and have a thinner tip, which should help it cut better. I haven't seen good numbers for XII thickness.
More and thicker textile armour could be a good functional explanation of why one might make those changes to a sword.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Harry Marinakis
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Nov, 2014 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I also like the Mac bible godenak
BKS webiste
|
|
|
|
|
Hector A.
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Nov, 2014 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Hector A. wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Hector A. wrote: | | Charles B McFadden wrote: | Seems to me like X or XIV would be most suited. I don't think most people would use a sword to thrust though, even if it had a perfectly capable design for it. It seems that instinctively for defense or attack when someone uses a large bladed weapon, they start wildly hacking with. So edge use seems more natural.
From what I have now read about the "X" type of sword, they seem designed for this. |
Type XII is better then X at cutting clothing with the tip, the tip is stiffer and thinner, so naturally better on soft targets. X types will have more resistant edges at the tip because they are thicker, but also cuts less aggressively soft targets.
In a modern scenario there are only soft targets, sometimes thick soft targets. |
How thick are XII near the tip? About 2-3mm looks usual for X. Are XII that much thinner? |
Can't tell you for sure don't have any calipers at hand but my Knightly is thinner than the Norman.
Also the stiffness factor is important, type XII are considerably stiffer in the tip, most people think it was a design developed to face chain armor, i disagree strongly, having tested it on chain and others having done the same, our results always coincide, the tip of a XII DOES NOT PENETRATE chain, even in half sword position... These swords where more likely to have been developed to cut and pierce big bundles of fabric, like early gambesons of its time, that were the main defense at the time. |
Stiffer would require thicker, given that there isn't much difference in the profiles of the tips. I was wondering about the thickness because the earlier termination of the fuller suggests that the XII might thin much earlier, and have a thinner tip, which should help it cut better. I haven't seen good numbers for XII thickness.
More and thicker textile armour could be a good functional explanation of why one might make those changes to a sword. |
Like i said it definitely wasn't to face chain, i can try and punch threw every which way and it just wont do anything, the section of the blade after the fuller is indeed thinner, but it is also stiffer, its not just thickness that influences stiffness but geometry as well, a fuller sword is not stiff because it lacks mass in the center.
|
|
|
|
|
Shahril Dzulkifli
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Nov, 2014 4:06 am Post subject: What kind of sword to use in modern times? |
|
|
Lots of choices, but I think the pulwar is the right one.
“You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength”
- Marcus Aurelius
|
|
|
|
|
Hunter B.
Location: Away from Home Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Nov, 2014 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Considering that machetes are used in areas for crimes because they tend to be the best tool readily available, I'd probably go with a nice walking stick or cane, something that is easy to deploy and gives you the advantage of distance. I'm fairly certain an English gentleman from the late 16th century might have a said a word or two on the matter.
“The Short staffe is the best weapon against all manner of weapons.”
Most crimes are those of opportunity, committed when the victim(s) is least prepared. If someone is going to attack you with a machete, they will do so before you ever have the chance to respond. That directly from behind or perpendicularly. You'd never have the time to draw something out of its sheath to deploy in time to respond.
Just like carrying a firearm today, the best tool against being a victim of violent crime is being aware of your surroundings and not making yourself an easy target.
So, personally speaking, given the disparity of laws regarding the carry and use of bladed weapons around the world, I would suggest that there are few swords or machetes that would serve you well.
I have, however, never had anyone raise an eye to a walking stick or cane. Even a 6 or 7' long one.
“It is the loose ends with which men hang themselves.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Nov, 2014 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hector A. wrote: | | Charles B McFadden wrote: | Seems to me like X or XIV would be most suited. I don't think most people would use a sword to thrust though, even if it had a perfectly capable design for it. It seems that instinctively for defense or attack when someone uses a large bladed weapon, they start wildly hacking with. So edge use seems more natural.
From what I have now read about the "X" type of sword, they seem designed for this. |
...
In a modern scenario there are only soft targets, sometimes thick soft targets. |
Hey! I resemble that comment!
The topic of what to carry, I would answer differently depending on whether the question is "what is the most sensible sword to carry?" or "what would *I* carry?". As others have said, for practicality a reasonably "handy" blade, possibly with some hand protection, optimised for the cut but able to thrust. Seems sensible.
As for what I wold carry? Probably something in the claymore or montante category. Gives the very loud and clear message that you are armed, and the shear impracticality probably works as a deterrent. To me has the added bonus that unlike something like the town guard that looks like a weapon of someone looking for a fight, lugging a claymore down to your accountant's to do your taxes would seem more like the act of a harmless eccentric not worth the bother.
As an added bonus, the extra incidental exercise might help the thickness of some of my soft targets 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Nov, 2014 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Falchion anyday. We live on the age of guns so I believe than any melee weapon has to be concelable and be able to be used quickly because a person with sees you and recognizes you as a threat worth eliminating, you will probably be shot full of holes before you can use your weapon.A Falchion, since it just has a flat crossguard and relative flat pommel, and a shorter one janed sword, can be conceled underneath clothing. Some falchions match machetes in profile shape so your probably use one as light machete for cutting brush, your lawn, carving meat, fairely well without much blade inquiry.Most people nowdays don't wear armour around with them or carry shields, and modern clothing is pretty insubstantial so I think a stiff diamond or lenticular double edged weapon would be a bit unecessary. I imagine using a montante would be pain to use and carry indoors. Staffs are great because they are pretty much legal everywhere but you grab then pretty safety even without a firm grip. From what I've read, the most common two handed modern meleed weapons are bats, pipes, clubs etc and most bats I've seen aren't made very long because they made to hit a ball and be easy to carry and load in a car, not outrange a attacker with, so like almost anysingle handed sword should outrange knives, be equal or longer ranged than machetes, and equal or outrange bats.
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Gregg
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Nov, 2014 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd go for a Falchion, as well. Thrusts are possible, cuts or chops to disable offending hands, short enough to be carried. Here's one I'm having made right now:
Christopher Gregg
'S Rioghal Mo Dhream!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Nov, 2014 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christopher Gregg wrote: | | I'd go for a Falchion, as well. Thrusts are possible, cuts or chops to disable offending hands, short enough to be carried. Here's one I'm having made right now: |
Very pretty, what are those bands on the hilt? wire? risers? metal leather grip bands?Also, what is the pipe around, is the pommeled socketed to the grip and peened to the tang?[
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Gregg
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Nov, 2014 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Christopher Gregg wrote: | | I'd go for a Falchion, as well. Thrusts are possible, cuts or chops to disable offending hands, short enough to be carried. Here's one I'm having made right now: |
Very pretty, what are those bands on the hilt? wire? risers? metal leather grip bands?Also, what is the pipe around, is the pommeled socketed to the grip and peened to the tang?[ |
The grip will be leather over oak with corded risers, pommel has "pipe" as you call it meeting the grip, peened to the tang. Guard and pommel will be solid cast bronze.
Christopher Gregg
'S Rioghal Mo Dhream!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diego De Leon
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Nov, 2014 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd go with something with a complex hilt, a medium size blade and optimized for the trust...
I think something like the A&A Town Guard would be the better choice... Its long enough to have a reach advantage vs a machete, and not to long to be unusable in close quarters, also the hilt gives a lot better protection that I'd gladly take...
P. D. I live in a third world country that has had some of the "bladed weapon" troubles before... XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic