Is "swords were useless in real combat" just a meme?

This thread is retarded

Agreed.

God, this so much.

>dumb them

point taken

>Is "swords were useless in real combat" just a meme?
Yes. Swords were the ultimate sidearms right until revolvers came along. From a military point of view they kinda still are, since generally soldiers aren't given sidearms other than a bayonet (pistols are usually for officers and top nco, I don't think there's any army that gives them to everyone).
>If they were useless, why were they so widespread?
They weren't useless at all. They were in fact the best weapon type for civilian life and non frontline military life, to no mention the perfect sidearm for battle. Every archer had a sword for close combat, every pikeman, every arquebusier.
In fact, many armies even used it as a main weapon.

I've always wondered that if 1) rapiers were the best sword in unarmored combat 2) when fighting against armor you'd want to stab in the gaps of the armor, why weren't rapiers considered the best type of sword in general by that logic. I guess it has to do with partially armored opponents and fighting from horseback (you don't want to get stuck stabbing someone when riding a horse).

Swords are much more useful in single combat than just about any other weapon and also made excellent cavalry weapons, but by the same token they tend to get badly BTFO by most other weapons as far as formation fighting is concerned. The skill ceiling for swordsmanship also tends to be higher than the skill ceiling for other weapons.

If it makes it easier, think of weapon classes having various stats; swords have balanced attack, speed and defense, polearms have high attack and high defense but low speed - in contexts where speed isn't a major factor, such as formation fighting, polearms have a huge advantage but in contexts where speed DOES matter, such as one-on-one contests, then the sword usually wins handily. All it takes is one parry with a sword to get inside of a spearman's reach and from there it's fucking ogre.

>If you take two groups of peasants, give one group spear and the other swords, dumb them in a field and have them fight eachother, the group with spears is going to win.
On the other hand, if you also give them a shield, sword is at least on even ground, perhaps even advantaged.
Spears are good in duels or disciplined formations, a spear armed rabble is not gonna get the better of a sword and shield armed rabble, there's a reason shield wall based armies preferred swords to spears.

Yes they were useless against anything. Ever try to kill someone with a sword? They are too heavy and harder to conceal and scissors just works better.

>That said, you could *surpise surprise* CARRY MULTIPLE WEAPONS WITH YOU.

This. Most soldiers in the middle ages would have a sword or axe or mace in addition to their main weapon. Indo-Persian cavalry would carry very short axes for close engagements, too.
>Not playing M&B Warband
>Not carrying a lance, sword, and mace

>1) rapiers were the best sword in unarmored combat
Yes.
>2) when fighting against armor you'd want to stab in the gaps of the armor, why weren't rapiers considered the best type of sword in general by that logic
Because it's hard as fuck and your opponent is just gonna close you down and wrestle you down. Or perhaps he has some sort of montante and he's gonna outrange you from or simply close down and batter you down with it.

Spears are gonna fuck you up in a duel and sword/shield formations are the best melee unit you could wish for unless you have excellent cavalry to back you up actually (in which case go pikemen).

>All it takes is one parry with a sword to get inside of a spearman's reach and from there it's fucking ogre.

Sword + shield does fairly well against a spear, however I've heard from various HEMA experts that without a shield a sword has a massive disadvantage against a spear, unless we are talking about really big two-handed swords. Spearman can shift his grip on his weapon really quickly, he isn't fucked immediately when the swordsman get's past his maximum reach.

Isn't a "shield wall based army" also a "disciplined formation?"

No. Generally speaking, a shield wall is something you do when you don't have an army drilled enough to do something more complex, like a maniple or a pike wall.

Oh that's not to say that shield wall are made by disciplined fighters, just not disciplined *units*.

They were a meme. A standard longsword would chip if it hit against a suit of gothic full-plate, and even chainmail and leather armour could resist them well. Now maces on the other hand...

See estoc

I always thought that only high ranking and rich knights wielded swords, because a good one is expensive to forge and that he lowly peasants (read: cannon fodder) took their spears or much pickaxes, axes and pitchforks into combat when they inevitably drafted into conflict. Have I been wrong all this time?

Swords were more expensive than axes for example but not all of them were too expensive for commoners. However, carrying them around in towns was restricted to knights for the most of the middle ages.

A sword cant thrust like a spear, cant crush like a mace, or put as much force in to a chop as an axe, but a sword is easy to carry and can and was used in all three of those capacities

One can also argue that a skilled fencer can combat all three of those weapon types in an ideal scenario, but that is largely subjective to conditions.

>Have I been wrong all this time?
Yes. Acceptable swords used to cost around one day wage for a common soldier. You could be quite certain 99% of archers, pikemen, etc would own one.

>lowly peasants (read: cannon fodder)
Didn't take part in wars. Biggest meme of them all, what would be the point? Wasting money in more food just to empty the fields that produce it?
Sure, there would be some amount of conscription, but from militias, not the peasantry.

rapiers do not have alot of leverage because they are one handed weapons.

>Swords
In early mideval era, and in slavic / norse regions especially, swords were expensive, only to be owned by those with money. As time went on, swords became affordable to the common man.

And people who try to make that argument are morons. You know what happens when plate armour becomes popular? Swords change from wide hacking blades, to fine piercing needles. Ideal for stabbing gaps in armour.

It's a sharp bar of metal with a handle on it, even if someone has armor on you can smack them around. Shit's good at a crowbar too tbqh

You are an idiot, seriously you are one.

Why are sword threads on Veeky Forums almost as horrible as the ones on /k/? For real, either Veeky Forums or /asp/, everything else is garbage when it comes to swords.

Nah you have no proof.

>1) rapiers were the best sword in unarmored combat
>Yes.
they seem pretty fragile though, like if someone hit a rapier with a solid object while defending themselves it might seriously damage the rapier and impair its functionality.

Rapiers aren't dainty, user. They're a solid chunk of steel and weigh the same as any other medium-sized sword will. Most swords outside of Japan can bend to an incredible degree and spring back to their normal shape. The rapier is no exception.

youtube.com/watch?v=cFRxZod-iI0

Here a practice rapier is beaten with various swords, including a longsword wielded in two hands. It is a flexible practice rapier, however when it is beaten on the edge (as it is in this video) it does not flex. Despite being hit with full force many times while the guy holding rapier is just standing there, it ends up being only slightly bent.

Now since it is not a sharp rapier, this doesn't prove anything for sure but it does suggest strongly that breaking a rapier would be very difficult in a fight. At least it proves that even if a rapier looks fragile, it doesn't mean it is.

>Swords useless in real combat

>maces and axes superior

I got your mace / axe right here, fotze.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-sword

Swords were dog shit.

Maybe in Skyrim.

what shield wall based army prefered swords over shields?

Maces in Warband suck besides those few captives are not worth much. Lords on the other hand that's the real deal.

Then why would anyone even wear armor genius?

There were generally specialized weapons for any specific function that were superior to swords.

Swords, however, have high utility and are good general purpose weapons. That's why they were so commonly sidearms.

>Is "swords were useless in real combat" just a meme?
Yes. Swords were extremely common on battlefields. Easily one of the most common weapon.

>If they were useless, why were they so widespread?
The answer is: they weren't useless.

>that knight

Is there any point in half-swording when fighting an unarmored opponent, like the knight in the picture?

>A standard longsword would chip if it hit against a suit of gothic full-plate
Swords were quite resilient, actually. They wouldn't hurt the man inside, but they wouldn't get damaged all that easily either. However, people usually didn't attempt to haplessly bash their swords against armour, they're thrust their swords into the gaps.

>Now maces on the other hand...
The effectiveness of maces against plate armour is overestimated. Plate armour protects you quite well against them since they have structural integrity of their own which distributes the impact to a large surface area which is then dampened by the padding underneath. Maces are much more effective against mail armour than against plate.

I thought this picture shows 2 guys training.

Well depends on the swords the heavy, blunt european ones were indeed glorified baseball bats but katanas were great.

Not much, but if your opponent has a dagger and manages to get close you can do it to maybe stab him before he stabs you. You could do the same thing to another swordsman; getting close enough where they can't swing or stab you but you can half sword and stab them.

Also that's not half-swording that's a mordhau.

Pretty sure this is a bait....

The armored guy is half-swording and the unarmored guy is doing a murderstroke/mordhau.

No it's common knowledge european swords were garbage.

Did I say it rendered armor useless?

This.

Yes retard you said you can bash someone wearing plate with a fucking sword.

>fucking sword

What kind of sword is that?

Not him, but what are you 12?

My bad ment to link the mordhau page as well.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordhau

Yes, when you are in close measure (you closer to your opponent than you usually should be) and need to go trough his defense. Works especially well if you are really fast and shorter than the other guy.

nope, judicial duel

Spears arent that low man, if you parry it with a sword they could recover pretty quick depending on the guy

Ever heard of halfswording, cause that is exactly how you thrust with a sword like a spear and crush like a mace

To the death?

His proof is what you said the first time

I figure weapons evolved for a reason. Swords tended to get larger around the time plate mail was coming into use.

It might also have to do with shifts in tactics around the same time, but the fact is you don't have big two handed swords being at all common until plate was also common.

From what I understand, plate lowered the necessity of having a shield, and large swords, like pole arms, had gave you the weight and torque you needed to smash through heavy armor.

Also, a big sword can be used to fend off multiple opponents, but is more versatile than a pole-arm.

I agree, I was about to correct him but I thought about it

You certainly can do that.

While a one handed sword blow might not do that much to someone in heavy armor, a blow to the head could still concuss them or even knock them out.

A two handed sword to the chest could definitely knock someone over.

Obviously it's more lethal if you can get it into gaps in your opponents' armor.

slow*

>surely mace or axe or spear are fare easier to make
maces are ridiculously hard to make.

This. That's one of the main strengths of the spear it can thrust and move it's point extremely fast.

Exactly, you can even parry with the fucking thing on your own

Usually yes, let god decide and such. Pic is from Hans Talhoffer, he was sword for hire and famous for winning several dozen trials by combat.

They look cool as shit.

That's what is called a meme, friend.

Armor doesn't protect you from blunt force trauma, only cuts and piercing, to an extent.

If you hall off and land a sword strike to the helmet, you might knock the dude right the fuck out, making him helpless. Likewise a blow to one of the appendages might break bones, and if not, will surely reduce the effectiveness of the limb due to the sheer pain and swelling to follow.

Special swords were often the best tool for puncturing armor or stabbing gaps

The knightly weapon of the late middle ages, where full armor plates where more common and better developed, was the Bill, Lucerne, and pole arms in general.

They were made to counter other knights and be useful in all situations. But mainly to 1v1 that knight you were going to face.

Armor was getting pretty damn good by the late 15th century, and basically swords weren't as great as they used to be. You'd wonder how people died at all with all the fucking armor they had on.

/thread

The larger swords where originally intended for use on horseback by knights and the such. I don't know why they use became widespread on the ground.

A big sword had to be used to fight off multiple opponents. One of the reasons the romans did so well was formation fighting and the use of a short thrusting sword and shield. The space required in the ranks to be swinging around a broadsword was huge. With the Romans in their formations, you would be fighting 3-4 people if you were using a broadsword.

>Swords tended to get larger around the time plate mail was coming into use.
Given that we're on Veeky Forums we might as well use more accurate terms when referring to arms and armour. 'mail' is armour made of metal rings ("chainmail"), while armour made of large metal plate is just that - 'plate armour'. There was a period in time when mail armour reinforced with plates was common, approaching the end of the 14th century, but this is not commonly what people mean when using terms such as 'plate mail', which in D&D terms would be just another word for plate armour.
Also, swords actually became larger during the 13th century already. It started with longer hilts, to allow for two-handed usage and later ended up in longer blades as well. When plate armour became common and more elaborate, swords actually became pointier.
Smashing 'through' armour is not generally something you can do. Armour - even mail armour - protects quite well from that. While during the 13th and 14th century it may have still been possible to harm a man with a hefty enough blade through his mail shirt, later plate armour protects exceedingly well from all kinds of blunt trauma. The plates have structural integrity of their own and will distribute the impact over their whole surface area, with padding underneath dampening all impact.
If we look at 15th century treatises, dealing with armoured combat, and depictions of battles, we can see people generally attempt to circumvent their opponent's armour by thrusting it into the gaps. Often grabbing the sword with one hand by the blade in order to use it like a short spear, making it more accurate and giving it more leverage.

Swords are good in the thrust, slice, and chop but I still prefer the warhammer.

Rapiers were so long that many people complained that they took too long to draw and shorter swords were better for their readiness

>carry half your net worth with you and dont play around piercing weapons

Lol

"Plate armor" is just as innaccurate a term as plate mail. In period, if you were talking about plate armor they would think you meant a coat of plates. Armor made of single solid plates was never called plate armor.

a vasty majority of the foot soldiers were unarmored peasants, only a handful on a battle field were actually fully armored. The swords were for cutting and cleaving your way through the trash Dynasty WArriors style while you had other tools for fighting honorably against similarly peer level knights.

Yeah, swords are garbage. The reason why they are fucking everywhere is because
because
because of anime and stuff.

Fucking weebs.

>use sword as polearm to wrestle knight to ground
>stab him in the visor
>"swords are useless bro"
>"wish I had an axe that could CUT THROUGH ARMOR"

>If ak-47s are so great, why are there bb guns??

Sad how many people actually believe this.

wew lad. fucking wew.

I'm talking about semantics, not about period terms. "mail" armour has simply nothing to do with "plate" armour. The first is armour made of interlinked rings, the second is armour made of metal plates of a certain size.
At the time when a coat of plates was worn, knights simply referred to it as their "plates". The mail underneath was their "mail". Under the premise that neither terms were used historically, you might as well say that we shouldn't use modern typology for swords and other types of weapons either. Typology serves a purpose though, and it the typological terms should not be ambiguous and semantically correct - and that's why the terms "mail armour" and "plate armour" are preferable to "chainmail" and "platemail", because "mail" does not refer to armour in general but a specific type of armour - there is no point in attaching it as a suffix to every type of armour. Would you like to call a padded jack "clothmail"? Because that's what we should do by your logic.

>leather armor

Swords are the most versatile, look at history for the evidence.
Against unarmored opposition, obviously.
Against armored opposition, consider that the pommel of the sword is weighted for a reason.

When will the half-swording meme die out? There's no real evidence it was used outside the combat practices illustrated in those German combat manuals made for nobles who would probably never see a battle in their lives.