What is the best sword? what is the best shield?

t. matt easton

>Best sword.
Katana, this is only because the sword's primary use is as a cutter of unarmored flesh (as opposed to a mace, which is better for armored foes), and for that reason, the Katana is the best sword, because the Katana is the design of sword best suited towards slicing through flesh. Of course, this is only considering the use of a sword by one person. As a group, there are other swords which are better at being used, and the gladius is a fine example, but even then, the best weapon to be used in a group is a spear type weapon, so even then a gladius is imperfect.. But for independent use without the added variables of group organization or armor, nothing can beat a Katana in terms of efficiency, and on the more sentimental side, of aesthetics.

There is a reason that a whole country fetishizes a weapon and the users of that weapon to such a degree that they do.

katana and no shield because i dun need 1 :P

I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.

>Kite shield + long sword if you want a shield
For what purpose? If you're going to be using a shield, why not just stick with an arming sword?

doesn't really matter that much,skill is what matters the most

>Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan?

Because it's literally on the other side of the globe

>Isn't design to fence, fight, parry, being used on foot, can't cut, designed when machine guns and repeating rifles where in existence since an entire generation
Yeah sure, "best sword", for some fantasy author maybe.

Most people understand the longsword to be a single handed weapon, referring to larger weapons as a zweihander or a bastard sword.

If you're going with sword&shield, sidesword and rotella.

10/10 bait made me chuckle

>sword thread

Okay, can somebody tell me how swordfighting worked? It seems like the obvious optimal position is to stand facing your opponent with your sword pointed straight at them. Unless one person has a longer reach, you're in stalemate. If you draw your sword back to strike, a) you can be stabbed in the meantime and b) the swing will, at best, reach exactly as far as it would've if you'd just held it straight out.

>best sword
+15 Claymore
>best shield
grass crest shield for stamina regen I hope you don't waste your time on using shields to block

follow me to the wildy i'll trim ure armour

The Ghurka Kukri or the Falchion, both have that forward momentum and weight for combos youtube.com/watch?v=wqJZcpysSzg

shields are for the mild, 2h it like a big boy

Veeky Forums copypasta

>It seems like the obvious optimal position is to stand facing your opponent with your sword pointed straight at them
Well yes and no, it's true that it's a good position that is central in many systems (see Coda Longa, Langort, Chudan, etc...) but it has weaknesses like any other: your hands are more vulnerable than in a high stance, ready for a downward strike, while extended your blade can be easily engaged and if you aren't really good in a binding of blades, you'll simply get outlined and stab. It's a good position for thrusting and controlling the center, but it doesn't work by itself obviously.

Every guard has advantages and disadvantages. But also, every guard is the beginning and the end of a blow, the middle guard is usually the beginning of a thrust and the end of a half downward blow, a high guard, the beginning of a downward cut (typically) while being the end of a rising cut.

The goal is typically to oppose enemy attacks with your blade via binding or striking cuts and parries and then, controlling the lines of attack by stepping offline or binding and preventing the opponent to be able to strike you, you can then land cuts and thrusts safely before retreating or pursuing. You need to understand footwork, binding of the blade, guards, blows but also tempo, that is the times when you can safely attack (for instance after a parry or when the opponent change guards), you need to understand measure that is the four distances (shortest, narrow, large, out of) that separates you from your opponent and allows you to do specific stuff. There is much to say about it, it depends of the type of sword, the tradition of swordsmanship, etc. But all in all, fencing is a matter of tempo and measure, were opponents act with blows (cuts and thrusts) and wait in guards (according to the aristotelian principles).

Also watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc

>SPADROON

Why were romans killing everyone with gladius and shield if spear were better ?
Genuinely asking

Hand-and-a-half sword with kite shield. You can fight with or without the shield, and you can fight on foot or on horse. No, I did not think about this extensively, just my answer.

Gladius is inferior to Spatha in every way.

Reverse blade sword

What the hell does that even mean...?

Because the romans also used spears.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarii

there's no immediate answer - it depends on the situation. How armored is your opponent? What type of material is the armor composed of? Is it laid out in a fashion conducive to multiple strikes, or just a single one? What type of weapon do they have?

There's no definitive answer and there never will be, but a rapier seems pretty cool.

Swords are shit.

You'd be better off with a spear or axe desu.

>or axe

Aren't axes designed for chopping wood? Better than nothing I guess, but how many warriors used axes vs how many used shields?

>Okay, can somebody tell me how swordfighting worked?
That's a really big and tough question to answer because there are so many different styles/cultures, different masters, and different weapons throughout history. However, for the most part, most one-handed and two-handed swords are not that different from each other (at least in their uses). Sure, a medieval arming sword looks different from an Indian talwar, but they are both swords. They can cut, thrust, and defend the person using it.

Swordfighting (aka fencing) has, in my opinion, one ultimate goal: to kill or disable your opponent while also defending yourself. In HEMA, we are constantly reminded that preserving oneself is more important than killing your opponent(s) unless you're a suicidal maniac. For example, anyone can run someone through with a rapier, but there's also a risk of counterattack. What is the point in both fencers being killed? It's foolish. This is why there are so many different guards, cuts, parries, etc that you have to learn. Tempo is also a big part of this. Within a certain amount of time, there are only so many actions a fencer can perform and the opponent can react or counter in predictable or unpredictable ways.

Reach, distance, stamina, and fitness are also big factors in a swordfight. In most cases, a person using a zweihander will have a huge advantage against someone armed with a smallsword. A tall person will generally have a bigger advantage over a shorter person, but that doesn't guarantee who wins. It just makes it harder for the shorter person.

There's also the matter of training against different types of opponents. A fight against a trained swordsman is very different to a fight against two untrained people who charge or rush at you.

Armor and swordfighting on foot or horseback also affect these situations.

>Swords are shit.
No they are not. Swords have been used throughout history all over the world.

>You'd be better off with a spear or axe desu.
In a battle, you would probably use a spear or polearm as your primary weapon. A one-handed axe by itself is not very good unless it is paired with a shield because axes are terrible when it comes to defense.

No. There are battle axes that can be used with one or two hands. Axes were commonly used in the Early and High Middle Ages.

>anyone can run someone through with a rapier
'no'
Rest of the post good tho.

Pattern 1796 Light Calvary Sabre.

>"Just then a French officer stooping over the body of one of his countrymen, who dropped the instant on his horse's neck, delivered a thrust at poor Harry Wilson's body; and delivered it effectually. I firmly believe that Wilson died on the instant yet, though he felt the sword in its progress, he, with characteristic self-command, kept his eye on the enemy in his front; and, raising himself in his stirrups, let fall upon the Frenchman's head such a blow, that brass and skull parted before it, and the man's head was cloven asunder to the chin. It was the most tremendous blow I ever beheld struck; and both he who gave, and his opponent who received it, dropped dead together. The brass helmet was afterwards examined by order of a French officer, who, as well as myself, was astonished at the exploit; and the cut was found to be as clean as if the sword had gone through a turnip, not so much as a dint being left on either side of it."

that unit type was out of use and history when the legionary cohort was put into battle

This

And here's one of the treatise that the designer wrote (even though the Angelos's manuals are probably more relevant)
fr.scribd.com/document/155998851/Broadsword-Exercises-John-Gaspard-Le-Marchant-1797

What was the best infantry sword?

When and for what situations? What's "best" is always a matter of use and context, especially in regards to what the weapon was suppose to be opposed to. When there is only other swords or bayonets around, the "best" is different to when halberds, pikes or lances were out there.

How many battlefield kills does that sword have?

*crickets chirp*

Chinese jians literally break right in half when you hit them hard enough. They're flimsy frail weapons.

>what is the best sword?
The Katana, even if it is underpowered in D20
>what is the best shield?
What are you fucking gay?

Do you have a $30,000 fedora to wear while you wield this sword of unbelievable power?

Depends. The official sword used by British infantry officers was the 1796 infantry officer sword (spadroon ), but it was a piece of shit. It wasn't broad enough to cut and too flexible to thrust. It was a failed compromise design. As a result, many infantry officers (mostly light infantry and rifle) adopted sabres like the 1803 pattern which is similar to the 1796 light cavalry sabre. The 1803 pattern is shorter and lighter so that it's easier to wield on foot, but it was a pretty good sword. However, they're not that good at thrusting.

I personally think a sword that can cut and thrust is the best option. The Highland officers used basket hilted broadswords that had straight blades with edges on both sides. I'd say they're on par with infantry sabres, sometimes better depending on how you look at them.

Arming sword + Heater shield
or
Long sword

>katana
>aesthetics
>Implying katanas aren't the same boring look
>Implying Chinese swords don't look better

>Katana for sword alone aesthetics.

You're much better off with a longsword than a katana. It's longer, so it will provide better reach and defence. It's straight, which allows you to thrust more accurately. It's centre of mass is closer towards the hilt which allows it to be wielded more easily. And the tapering of the blade aids you in a natural draw-cut while it also means that you get an acute point that you can thrust into gaps.
A longsword can be used against any kind of opponent, whether he's armoured, unarmoured, it can be used from horseback like make-shift lance, it can be turned into a make-shift warhammer by flipping it around and hitting opponents with hilt and pommel, it's a formidable thrusting weapon and a decent cutter.

>It's straight, which allows you to thrust more accurately.
Thrusts are only efficient against armored enemies. This is why Europe had double edged swords, because thrusting into a piece of chain mail or a chink in plate armor would be the best thing to do if your opponent was armored, but if your opponent is unarmored, then a slashing weapon is objectively superior. This is why European armies switched to sabres once armor went out of style, and since the sword is best used as an assault against unarmored foes in the first place, the katana is still the best sword.

>It's centre of mass is closer towards the hilt which allows it to be wielded more easily.
Only if you were using it with the intention of thrusting. Any argument using "center of mass" is only viable if the sword is absolutely straight, which a katana is not, and it is still the best sword because of the reasons stated above: Slashing.

>And the tapering of the blade aids you in a natural draw-cut
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_geometry
>Blades with a more gradual taper are meant for cutting, whereas blades with an acute taper are usually meant for thrusting.
>get an acute point that you can thrust into gaps.
>thrust
Again, if the main benefit of the sword is its thrusting ability, it is inferior to a slashing sword when encountering unarmored foes, which is also the ideal type of foe for a sword to be used in the first place.

>A longsword can be used against any kind of opponent, whether he's armoured, unarmoured.
A slashing sword is objectively better than a thrusting sword for unarmored foes. Swords are ideally used against unarmored foes, so a slashing sword if superior to a thrusting sword.

>it can be used from horseback like make-shift lance
Or you can, I don't know, use an actual lance instead if you were intending to thrust? Slashing swords are also objectively better than thrusting swords on horseback as well. This is why almost all late cavalry used sabres.
cont

>it can be turned into a make-shift warhammer by flipping it around and hitting opponents with hilt and pommel
This is not the intended use of the sword, and if you were intending to bash the enemy, why not use a mace instead?

>it's a formidable thrusting weapon and a decent cutter.
The katana is a formidable cutting weapon and a decent thrusting weapon, and for that reason, it is superior to the longsword, since cutting is the proffered method of using swords, since the proffered enemy of swords is the unarmored opponent, which is more vulnerable to cutting weapons than thrusting ones.

This is also completely disregarding the technique and lifelong learning the traditional users of this weapon perfected.

>if your opponent is unarmored, then a slashing weapon is objectively superior.
If your opponent carries a longer weapon such as a longsword or a rapier he can attack you while you can not. You won't ever reach him with your cut.

>This is why European armies switched to sabres once armor went out of style
They didn't. They first switched to straight side-swords, then to rapiers. And sabres were contemporaries of other types of straight swords as well. For as long as swords have been used in war, straight swords have been around.

>if the main benefit of the sword is its thrusting ability, it is inferior to a slashing sword when encountering unarmored foes
Thrusts have historically been regarded more deadly.

>Or you can, I don't know, use an actual lance instead if you were intending to thrust?
A lance may break and it will have to be dropped if you get entangled in close combat. And then what?

>This is why almost all late cavalry used sabres.
Light cavalry used sabres. Heavy cavalry generally used straight swords.

>why not use a mace instead?
Because a mace does not have the other advantages? It is a highly specialised weapons with certain downsides. Most of all when it comes to defence.

>which is more vulnerable to cutting weapons than thrusting ones.
An unarmoured man is even more vulnerable to thrusting weapons since a thrust is much easier and much more straightforward to execute, and it is a natural extension of your defence.

>This is also completely disregarding the technique and lifelong learning the traditional users of this weapon perfected.
If your weapon lacks reach there is very little you can do. Someone who wields a spear has a huge advantage over a sword user (assuming no shields or armour are involved), and if your opponent wields a longsword or a rapier he has a huge advantage over someone wielding a shorter sword.

>If your opponent carries a longer weapon such as a longsword or a rapier he can attack you while you can not. You won't ever reach him with your cut.
Thrusts are more easily avoided than slashes if you are at a distance to where a slash can't be made to your thrusting opponent, furthermore, a slashing weapon wielded with two hands provides much more power when parrying as opposed to a rapier.

>They didn't. They first switched to straight side-swords
I wonder why? The primary use for a sword on horseback was slashing, in comparison with a lance, a thrusting sword was ineffective. A curved sword is even better than a straight sword for slashing, even if it is only one sided, which is why eventually they switched to sabres.

>For as long as swords have been used in war, straight swords have been around.
From the civil war on and probably even before, the primary type of sword used was a sabre.

>Thrusts have historically been regarded more deadly.
This is objectively false when talking about unarmored foes, the most deadly blow is an upward, hammering slash, or a decapitation/dismemberment using a side slash.

>A lance may break and it will have to be dropped if you get entangled in close combat. And then what?
And then you pull out your sabre? Most lancers had curved swords at their sides for close combat between cavalry.

>Light cavalry used sabres. Heavy cavalry generally used straight swords.
Because light cavalry wasn't slowed down by armored, a fast moving rider slashing with a curved sabre is deadly, not only to infantry, but also to unprepared cavalry.

>Because a mace does not have the other advantages? It is a highly specialised weapons with certain downsides. Most of all when it comes to defence.
What is a mace specialized for? Armored foes. Just as a curved sword is specialized for unarmored foes, but since the primary purpose of a sword has been slashing, that means that a slashing specialized sword is the superior sword.

cont.

> Just as a curved sword is specialized for unarmored foes, but since the primary purpose of a sword has been slashing, that means that a slashing specialized sword is the superior sword.

wtf

how do you not realise that being able to both slash and thrust is an advantage

This is all bullshit, 99% of combat would be decided by the first or if very lucky second blow.
If you were using a heavy sword weapon you were just trying to hit each other as hard as possible to see who got knocked back.
Fencing isn't war swords, there wasn't any parring or fancy footwork you won or lost on the first swing, everything else was just finishing the job

>An unarmoured man is even more vulnerable to thrusting weapons since a thrust is much easier and much more straightforward to execute, and it is a natural extension of your defence
I disagree, a slash is probably the most basic and easiest sword maneuver ever, and this is natural, since the sword's main benefit is as a slashing weapon. Also, a slash has the capacity to incapacitate an enemy much faster than a poke or a thrust, you can't cut off an arm, leg, or head with a thrust.

>If your weapon lacks reach there is very little you can do.
There is very little a long spear wielder can do if the distance is closed. Spears are by nature extremely predictable, since there is only one viable move you can make with a spear, which is why such a theoretical fight between a spear wielder and a sword wielder would change extremely based on who is attacking or defending.

>Someone who wields a spear has a huge advantage over a sword user
The huge advantage is only had if the sword wielder is attempting to attack, rather than defend, since a spears thrusts are very easy to predict.

>and if your opponent wields a longsword or a rapier he has a huge advantage over someone wielding a shorter sword.
If the two are at a distance to where the slasher is out of range, then naturally the only viable attack from the one possessing the long sword would be the thrust, which would make any move of his very predictable.

>how do you not realise that being able to both slash and thrust is an advantage
It is, and a katana can thrust decently, but the purpose of a sword is to thrust decently and slash excellently, as this fulfills the main benefits of its design.

Then from this, would you say that a light and fast slashing weapon is superior? Or a more heavier sword optimized for thrusting?

>Thrusts are more easily avoided than slashes if you are at a distance to where a slash can't be made to your thrusting opponent
And by the time you are at a distance where it can be made you have been stabbed twice.

>I wonder why? The primary use for a sword on horseback was slashing, in comparison with a lance, a thrusting sword was ineffective.
Straight cavalry swords have been a thing at least since the Roman period. The Roman cavalry sword, the Spatha, was straight. The knightly arming sword was straight. So clearly straight swords must have been useful. Also, there is nothing to keep you from bringing both a lance and a sword because you can carry it by your side.

>From the civil war on and probably even before, the primary type of sword used was a sabre.
If by "civil war" you mean the American civil war then swords have already been pretty marginalised on the battlefields. And as you can see in the picture of , the last swords that were issued were straight.

>And then you pull out your sabre? Most lancers had curved swords at their sides for close combat between cavalry.
Or maybe you pull out your longswords, like knights would have done during the late middle ages. Heavy cavalry used straight swords.

>Because light cavalry wasn't slowed down by armored
Heavy cavalry usually had access to better horses so they'd likely be faster and late heavy cavalry in particular wasn't actually that "heavily" armoured any more.

>a fast moving rider slashing with a curved sabre is deadly, not only to infantry, but also to unprepared cavalry.
I can guarantee you that light cavalry will have a hard time dealing with heavy cavalry in close combat.

>What is a mace specialized for? Armored foes.
This is more of a D&D myth. A mace works actually much better against more lightly armoured opponent than plate armour, which protects exceedingly well against blunt force trauma. A mace works best against mail armour; against plate not so much.

continued
>Just as a curved sword is specialized for unarmored foes
The point remains that a straight sword is just as specialised at killing unarmoured men while at the same time allowing you to deal with armoured men, which makes it the better choice.

>I disagree, a slash is probably the most basic and easiest sword maneuver ever, and this is natural
And yet it's less straightforward than stabbing people.

>a slash has the capacity to incapacitate an enemy much faster than a poke or a thrust
In theory, but it won't help you if you get stabbed before you even get the opportunity to cut someone, which would happen if you faced a man who wields a longsword or a rapier with a comparatively short sword like a katana.

>There is very little a long spear wielder can do if the distance is closed.
The point is that in order to close the distance it depends on the spear wielder making a mistake. If he does not, then you lose the battle which means that he is at an advantage. And the same is true when fighting longsword or rapier vs katana.

>very easy to predict.
>which would make any move of his very predictable.
The fact that you know that you're going to get stabbed is not going to help you.

Katana are not "light" and "fast" is not a property of a sword. Katana have thick and bulky blades due to how they are being manufactured which makes them comparatively heavy swords.

i know this is supposed to be cringe but he has great blade alignment and follow-through.

There isn't really a "best sword" or a "best shield"
It depends on who you're fighting and what they're using
Spears are better than swords in most cases though

You posted best sword and scutum is best shield.

>All these long swords when have to go indoor or tight spaces.
>Slashes instead of stabbing

>Thrusts are only efficient against armored enemies

your first line and you're already dead wrong, impressive.

slash = trauma and damage to muscle tissue, enemy incapacitated
thrust = vital organ struck and major blood loss, enemy dead where he stands

Best sword is probably some sort of 19th century sabre

Of course there was parry, it is like at least half of Fiore's Zogho Largo ending in meza spada incrossada. British military fencing taught seven parries, almost any system says that to parry and defend is the crux of the art rather than knowing how to only attack which is good for büffel and peasant.

The "first strike always" is bullshit, sure it happened, but it's not what swordfighting is only about. Bashing each other swords is an idiot move and was referrred as such in the treatises, it's useful against novices or timid people but useless against people who know a bit of fencing, and that's assuming they let you knock their swords back in the first place.

You know absolutely nothing of fencing, military or any other, past or present.

>Thrusts are only efficient against armored enemies.
Wow, stopped reading right there...
There's a reason why thrusts were favored rather than cuts in the modern era up until the industrial era, they're much more lethal than cuts, and have several other advantages against cuts. Starting in the 1550's, Europe is pretty much slowly but surely going full thrusts for their civilian fencing.
Saying that thrusts are only efficient in armor fencing is absolutely ridiculous considering the absurd mass of smallsword and épée manuals and the proeminence of such weapons.

Hello newfriends

Agreed

Were these faggs a thing?

Because while spears might have been better if you have a single target, that requires being more compact and the formation as a whole becomes less maneuverable. Roman cohorts going back to the Maniple system valued flexibility greatly.

Throwing axes existed but the idea of a soldier doing nothing but throwing axes is silly

Why did the Romans stop using them if they were the best?

Romans started losing when they stopped losing them :^)

Not true actually, they stopped using them because they weren't effective for the style of warfare the Romans were conducting anymore. They were relegated to use by auxilia and limitanei before being phased out altogether.

Scottish basket-hilted broadswords are objectively the most aesthetic

Greek Hoplon is the most aesthetic shield, and offers good protection.

Sword wise who knows, they're all good for different things.

It's incredible how someone who has never handled a weapon, done any study, or even paid attention to those that do can speak with such surety about a subject they must logically understand that are utterly ignorant of.

Later shield were still called scutums, and still WERE scutums.

The oval was the original form of the thing.

Also, it's horribly overrated.

>Katana for sword alone aesthetics.

Goddamn weebs. Literally the most boring sword design in history.

I'd go with Falcata. Practical design, copied by the Romans and Carthaginians. One of the oldest swords in history.

>I'd go with Falcata. Practical design, copied by the Romans
They literally never used the falcata or anything designed from it, and neither did the Carthaginians. Nobody did.

>best sword
ez, falchion
>best shield
depends on the situation but the pavise is easily the most aesthethic

>That moment when you get better at making sabers than the guys you copied them from

I like the gladius, I think that's my favorite sword type to have ever existed

Pattern welded Nordic sword

The gladius is quite nice, but I'm not a fan of the hilt. Love the blade design and functionality though.

spatha moron get out

That's a beautiful blade, holy shit.

First the Katana was not designed as a cutter of unarmored flesh. This is fiction. Even the shorter katana of the edo era had there origins in the sword of foot so soldiers. They were easy to wear and they were quick to draw. If you were on horse back or fought in open ranks you often used a longer tachi or nodachi.

There is nothing mystical about it, a katana weights about as much as a war sabre (depending on the type) is slightly shorter and can be sued one or two handed as the situation demands. A tachi is about the weight of a longsword give or take.

Japanese smiths were perfectly capable of producing lighter blades, or heavier blades for that matter. The 200 year peace of the Edo period however persevered katakana pretty much as they were: shortened war swords. Easy to wear, easy to deploy.

Whether I chose it over a long sword would depend entirely on what kind of fight I was expecting. There is no best sword. Its like arguing over what the best type of hammer is.

>The 200 year peace of the Edo period however persevered katakana pretty much as they were: shortened war swords.
Damn, the Japanese are so hardcore even one of their form of writing is a sword!

It's subjective. For me it's the katana for a few reasons. I know how to use one (inb4 weeb) I study martial arts. Aesthetics. It's faster than a great sword and has more length than a one handed sword like a gladius. Also, the one sided blade allows for more defensive capabilities. In terms of shields, for personal soldiers I don't even know but for armies it's definitely got to be the scutum.

>Also, the one sided blade allows for more defensive capabilities.
You sure of that? One strike on the mune is pretty much a destroyed blade for sure. You can deflect with mune against mune (or against the shinogi), but that's something you can do with double-edge blades as well. Sure you can "grip" the back to block at the shortest measure on the other hand (and then you can also receive blows on the flat while holding the blade with a double edge blade), all of the parries that you can make with a japanese sword are more dangerous to the blade that they are with a typical late european sword so... It does thing a bit differently and ultimately, it's not that much different, but I don't know if a one side blade really allows for more defensive capabilities.

You can do very specific things with the curve for instance, but the mune really is the weaker point of the japanese sword.

I'm not into Chinese history much, but their swords are top-tier, at least aesthetically. Jian, specifically, is a lovely sword.

>what is the best shield?