Difference between Greatsword/Thrusting Greatsword

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If the Gurps "normal" broadswords etc. even existed at all they were very rare historically compared to the Thrusting models.

Some swords are virtually unable to Thrust and some are more or less pointed than others but actually blunt-tipped? I haven't seen it.

I'm not really qualified, but these come to my mind:

- the macuahuitl,
- the khanda.

I think some others might also be included, but maybe they are covered by your definition of "virtually unable to thrust".

OK, I know the macuahuitl could be considered "not a sword". Functionally, however, it is a one-handed, sword-length weapon that cuts quite well but is blunt-tipped.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Michele

I'm not really qualified, but these come to my mind:

- the macuahuitl,
- the khanda.

I think some others might also be included, but maybe they are covered by your definition of "virtually unable to thrust".

OK, I know the macuahuitl could be considered "not a sword". Functionally, however, it is a one-handed, sword-length weapon that cuts quite well but is blunt-tipped.

It was one-handed? I thought they were great big two-handed dealies.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

It was one-handed? I thought they were great big two-handed dealies.

I confess I had to look it up... it seems they came in both varieties. That makes sense, I guess, just like there were two-handed long metal blades.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Michele

I confess I had to look it up... it seems they came in both varieties. That makes sense, I guess, just like there were two-handed long metal blades.

Looks like they had both, with the one-handed version being more common.

[Jerron]

A Roman Gladius, I believe, would be considered a blunt broadsword. There are plenty examples here of pointy ones.

The point being, the sword is usually a cheaper thing if it's used just for hacking, and a better sword, with decent metal alloy, would be the ones saved for posterity. So we don't see as many of the cheaper sort even in fiction, but axe-style swordsmanship is what is required when you don't have a pointy end (as opposed to being an option :P ).

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Jerron

A Roman Gladius, I believe, would be considered a blunt broadsword.

Now really? I would have said it was a shortsword, and with a thrusting tip. You sure?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Jerron

A Roman Gladius, I believe, would be considered a blunt broadsword. There are plenty examples here of pointy ones.

Wrong twice. A Gladius is practically the archetype of the Gurps Shortsword. Pointy too.

The argument about commonly used swords not being preserved for posterity is unlikely as well. A surprising number of medieval swords are still around today because they fell into Northern European bodies of water with muddy bottoms and were preserved in the cold, anaerobic mud.

It would be exactly the most common types of swords that were preserved this way and we don't see blunt tips among them.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Boberama

What's the difference between these?

Look here:
http://www.vikingsword.com/virtmus.html

Some swords simply had a "butter knife" sort of end, like the one at the top. That is not a very useful stabbing instrument. I don't expect that these were common, in the whole schema of swordom, but they certainly did exist. On down the page you can see the more aggressively-pointed swords, which I expect were more common, generically speaking.

This does not mean, though, that one could not stab and cause great damage with a butterknife (I suspect such a blow would rip and rend flesh and cause bleeding) but simply that an ice pick or dagger would punch much deeper, possibly deep enough to reach vital organs and puncture them. Thus your crush versus impale effect.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by safisher

Look here:
http://www.vikingsword.com/virtmus.html

Some swords simply had a "butter knife" sort of end, like the one at the top. That is not a very useful stabbing instrument. I don't expect that these were common, in the whole schema of swordom, but they certainly did exist. On down the page you can see the more aggressively-pointed swords, which I expect were more common, generically speaking.

This does not mean, though, that one could not stab and cause great damage with a butterknife (I suspect such a blow would rip and rend flesh and cause bleeding) but simply that an ice pick or dagger would punch much deeper, possibly deep enough to reach vital organs and puncture them. Thus your crush versus impale effect.

That's not the difference between Impaling and Crushing though. Look at Martial Arts p.224 and Scissors still Thrust like a Knife (and thus do Imp damage). They're just at -1 damage.

A really detail oriented GM could give historical swords more or less damage but changing damage type is too extreme.

The "normal" Gurps Broadsword does _exactly_ the same Thr/Cr damage as a Bokken and I have never seen a metal sword that blunt-tipped.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

That's not the difference between Impaling and Crushing though. Look at Martial Arts p.224 and Scissors still Thrust like a Knife (and thus do Imp damage). They're just at -1 damage.

All the scissors I have are very sharp at the end.

Some like this:
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sp...9/scissors.jpg

Some sturdier (kitchen shears).

Many pairs of scissors come to a distinct point that always makes me NERVOUS when carrying them. They also look like a brilliant way to stab someone to death.

Some have clipped points, and some are downright rounded, both for saftey. Especially plastic "safty scissors" for children although the number of times I cut the webbing on my fingers as a child tells me that they're "safe" in the sense of "not murderous" as opposed to "no blood drawn at all".

But most scissors have some kind of sharp point to get into small areas, or for fine precision work.