Why people bothered with curved swords? They are shit...

>Sabres only became widespread in the Middle East during the 15th century

but scimitars when in use way before it

probably easier to using on horseback?

The earliest Arabic curved swords are from the 13th century. Sabres only became popular during the 15th century. For most of the middle ages, Arabs used straight swords.

yeah look how not covered in armor he is

I will admit. I don't know everything and that is something I didn't really know. But when exactly did they use straight swords? If it pre-dated periods where mail or other armour covered the entire body, then curved weapons could have become quite popular (just guessing).

scimmy gives a big slash bonus and has a high attack speed.

>Why people bothered with curved swords?
Better at cutting

>are absolutely useless against an armored opponent

Don't attack an armored opponent with it?

I'm sorry, but why is this an argument?

>But when exactly did they use straight swords?
up to Islamic Golden Age

I don't see how a singular example of a specific suit of armour (whether it's authentic and dated properly is another issue) is supposed to prove me wrong. Not to mention that you should consider that they probably also used a lance, which did a formidable job against mail.

Ultimately, the people who used these weapons probably knew better than you, otherwise they wouldn't have used them.

>Don't attack an armored opponent with it?
>don't attack your enemy with it
great weapon then, let's hope for an off chance you will encounter only the poorest troops and if a wealthy guy in armor comes in you just die or run away

>singular example
ever heard about fucking cathapracts?

If you are cavalry, what's going to keep you from using a mace? Maces were quite a common cavalry side-arm in the middle east. In fact, you can even bring both a mace and a sword with you, having a sword by your side and a mace by your saddle.

but why bother with the fucking sword if I have a mace?

1. They have lances.
2. We only have depictions of them but no remaining suit of armour.

Because fare better against unarmoured opponents?

>HURRR no one except for glorious Europe used armor

>unarmoured opponents?
such as?

That's the same suit as in . And look, he got an axe.

Men who couldn't afford heavy armour on the battlefield and pretty much everyone in civilian contexts of self-defence.

Most common infantry used armours like gambeson or brigandine (even infantry outside of europe), and those both work well.

so what he has an axe? The fuck it has to do with anything?

>weapon is good against unarmed women and children

wow curved swords surely were worth buying

Curved blades are easier to cut with, the curve makes even a straight on chop into a slicing, tearing action. With a straight blade you need to sort of draw it against whatever it's contacting.

Even cloth can turn a slash from a straight sword if not delivered properly, but an angry retard could cut through cloth and flesh with a curved blade, like an axe or a saber.

Contrary to what these Veeky Forumstorians believe, no army is outfitting its entire body of men in full suits of blade-proof armor. There is almost always something you can cut, or stab.

Thrusting is viable with many types of curved swords, they're just as balanced and the alignment of tip and handle still makes it a natural motion.

Because they weren't trying to kill each other. Islam is a religion of peace.

This. Do you people not know how expensive plate armour, even chain mail was? The average soldier was not equpied like the movies will have you believe. The Middle East is hot as fuck. You actually couldn't run around in plate armour. You'd die of heat stroke.

>There is almost always something you can cut, or stab.
what would you cut here?

We know that not everyone wore blade-proof armour. It's just not hard to get a shield, or any good armour. Actually blade proof armour is easy to get, dumb-ass.

>You actually couldn't run around in plate armour. You'd die of heat stroke.
and what is your fucking point? Yeah you couldn't run around in plate which is why they didn't. Does that mean they didn't have armor? Fuck no.

The reason metal armor makes you hot is because it retains heat. You can wear at-least chainmail in the middle east and not overheat by covering it with a tabard or cloth garment

>weapon is good against unarmed women and children
Why just women and children? In a civilian context men wouldn't wear armour either.

Europe has used curved swords for that purpose too. Messer-like weapons were a popular side-arm for civilian self-defence in many European countries.

>In a civilian context men wouldn't wear armour either.
or weapons for that matter so basically curved swords are only good by american criteria of brutalizing innocents
>woah dude with this Remmington I could, like totally shoot up my school! 10/10

Did you miss his point or are you deliberately obtuse?

Most soldiers were not in that sort of armor.

They work pretty well, but you need to consider that it's not just about hitting stationary targets but about fighting people that want to kill you and defending yourself. A mace is good at whacking things from horseback, but it's rather unwieldy and actually harder to use than a sword as it needs to hit precisely with the head which makes extremities (which in an actual fight will be the first opportunity to hit) quite hard to hit targets. Swords are much more forgiving, as they have a larger area that is effective for dealing damage. Also, they're lighter, easier to wield and thus also to defend with, exploit sudden openings, etc. - lastly, a sword provides a defence by merely pointing it at someone, even a curved sword. A mace is only dangerous when in motion.

It means that he has a weapon perfectly fit for dealing with armoured opponents and he can draw his sword, assuming he has one by his side, on unarmoured ones.

>source: my video games

>or weapons for that matter so basically curved swords are only good by american criteria of brutalizing innocents
Did you consider that the man you are trying to cut might not be an innocent but a guy who attacked you first?

if he had a straight swords he wouldn't need the fucking mace to begin with

In europe, there were a bunch of places that made it a requirement of citizens to own arms and armour (like brigandine). This wasn't for disputes with each-other, it was because these kingdoms sourced militia men from towns during times of war.

why would a civilian attack me? How often were armored cavalrymen randomly attacked by civilians? That's how life is like in your Mount and Blade mod?

and this thread is not about Europe

Maces or war-hammers weren't exactly uncommon as cavalry side-arms either. It was not unusual for people to carry both a mace and a sword. Not to mention that their primary weapon would have always been a lance.

Dude wtf? Do you know how much of the armies consisted of people like in that armour? How are you that dense mate. They used a lot of militia back in the days, not everyone was wealthy like the one who'd own that armour.

True.

>why would a civilian attack me?
Because he felt you looked at him funny.

>How often were armored cavalrymen randomly attacked by civilians?
Are you unable to read? I said "civilian context", which means that we are not talking about warfare here. You might be an armoured cavalryman on the battlefield, but when not in battle (which is most of the time) you're an average guy wearing civilian clothes. And how are you going to defend yourself in such a situation? With a sword.

would you rather:
>light coat, keeps you cool and warm in the 100+ degree heat
>Heavy and extremely hot/cold chain/metal plate armor
>

>Curved blades are easier to cut with, the curve makes even a straight on chop into a slicing, tearing action. With a straight blade you need to sort of draw it against whatever it's contacting.
Adding to this, straight swords often get stuck in the body and being out of a weapon when surrounded by enemies is a bigger problem than range or perceived uselessness against armor. Here's a retarded exercise that cavalry using straight swords do to ensure that they still have a weapon when they pierce somebody. The sorta flourish they do before bringing the sword back to the original position isn't actually a flourish; it's to ensure that the sword leaves the opponent's body cleanly
youtube.com/watch?v=tWQaJunscSQ

Imagine calling curved weapons "stupid" and then posting a photo showing that the cream of Asia's military elite were using them.

Try historical depictions of soldiers and history books. Yes many had some armor, good armor even, but that is not the same as complete coverage.

They're no more useless against armor than straight swords. Nevermind plate, even chainmail backed by padding was too difficult to stab through with either weapon. There's no reason you couldn't grapple the point into gaps with a curved blade either, as slits in armor only allowed a flat-leveled sword through and both weapons were the same from that view.

Blade alignment my man. Curved swords have a really hard time performing an effective stab if the blade is curved too much.

I understand thermodynamics, thanks. That's why I specifically specified plate armour.
Not the average soldier. Even chain mail is expensive and takes a long time to make.

>thermodynamics
>Excuse me?
Even with a straight sword, as-long as the weapon tapers acutely enough, it's possible to penetrate the gaps in places like the visor, or sometimes even mail in the joints for arms, legs or groin.

Ah shit. I'm extra autistic! I can't read. Excuse my autism.

I though you were referencing a different post.

Another pathetic bait thread.

They look cooler

You give curved swords to the people who wouldn't need to use it against armored opponents.

Ex. Napoleonic heavy cavalry was armed with straight swords, while light cavalry was armed with curved sabers.

>why would a civilian attack me?

bandits, drunks, angry morons, asassins, belligerent cunts in general

Serious and simple answer? Because most people where curved swords were popular were unarmored peasant-folk and a curved sword works better from from horseback against a farmer than a straight sword.

youtube.com/watch?v=ikVMXhcjbYc
>shit
uh huh.

they cut better than straight swords.

>Ex. Napoleonic heavy cavalry was armed with straight swords, while light cavalry was armed with curved sabers.

As far as British swords go, that wasn't a difference that was chosen on purpose by a single dude. The heavies just really didn't want to give up their straight swords when what's-his-face was pushing his newly designed 1796 sabre. So he designed a backsword for them that just happened to be straight while having a point which was entirely unsuited to thrusting.

judging by what wealthy Arabs wore the chainmail is the better option

there are also fucking axes around

most of Europe's infantry wasn't armored until late middle ages either yet no one used curved swords

>and are absolutely useless against an armored opponent
Protip: most swords are useless against an armored opponent

Just because it's a straight sword doesn't make it anti armor.

do you think europeans just didn't use curved swords at all?

Asiatic influence in weapon design never reached beyond Austria until the Hungarian Hussars became the meme of the day.

>They have less range than straight ones
there are some long ass curved swords that have better range

>no-one used curved swords

>are absolutely useless against an armored opponent
cant speak for medieval times but in some countries they were used after gunpowder regiments became a common enemy and armor was no longer a thing
>The hussar sabre was perhaps the best-known type of szabla of its times and became a precursor to many other such European weapons. Introduced around 1630, it served as a Polish cavalry mêlée weapon, mostly used by heavy cavalry, or Polish Hussars. Much less curved than its Armenian predecessors, it was ideal for horseback fighting and allowed for much faster and stronger strikes.[1] The heavier, almost fully closed hilt offered both good protection of the hand and much better control over the sabre during a skirmish
you can read more here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szabla

...

It's like you don't know most infantry were peasants who didn't have much metal armor aside from a helmet in some contexts.

>most swords are useless against an armored opponent
katana can easily cut through armor

wow people who got patritioned 3 times in a row used it it must be good

They got partitioned by people who copied those regiments though

if you mean bamboo japanese armour, yes... if you mean european steel armour or even chainmail, forget it... katana's were shit... cut the weeb shit out

Because the idea came from the turks who conquered the middle east from the 11th century and onward. The turks fought mainly from horseback and in that case curved swords was better for cutting down enemies.
Also aside from knights nobody could afford plate armor in medieval times so the sword still saw use in cutting down lesser armored opponents.

That's meaningless when it comes to grappling and sliding the blade into a gap.

Japanese armor was made of layered iron and steel. No sword could cut through it.

abandon thread

Nice job missing an obvious joke you autist

>what is cavalry

they didn't get partitioned while they were still using them so if anything it speaks in favour of sabres

Basically this. That's why it was pointless to train Defense.

Basically get Strength and Attack high enough to equip Rune and go into the Wild equipping a low tier weapon. Your level won't be as high as it should be for someone with a Rune weapon and you just clean house in the wild.

Look I am not saying it was as good as European plate, at least not in terms of full coverage, but it wasn't fucking bamboo