shortsword vs broadsword

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

There is, it's -4 to skill for each point of reach. The shortsword just doesn't gain an advantage here, because I'm not clear there should be one: the difference between shortswords and broadswords are less than a foot and a pound, and broadsword style weapons were generally favored over shortswords for most of history.

A foot of difference can be the difference between reach C and reach 1, and a pound is about a third of the weight of a Broadsword, so that's hardly inconsequential. The fact that Shortswords and Broadswords are both inside the 1 yard breakpoint is a side issue.

But Shortswords aren't comparable to Broadswords - Broadswords are blunt on top, Shortswords are all sharpened. Compare it to a Thrusting Broadsword, at $600 - you're looking at $200 difference, or a -33% discount, along with -33% weight discount, in exchange for a -1 to swing and damage.

This cost difference scales with modifiers - a Fine Thrusting Broadsword is $800 more expensive than a Fine Shortsword, for example.

Yes, a thrusting broadsword is better. It's also 50% more expensive, weighs 50% more, and is one higher TL. This is all WHY it's better. Technology marches on, and older things can indeed become obsolete.

If you have enough money and technology to buy the Thrusting Broadsword, you probably want it.

The shortsword might be more legal to carry, as a crappier weapons technology. More likely it would be LESS legal - it's cheaper and therefore more in reach of peasents, so you have more need to make it illegal to prevent peasants from arming themselves with almost-as-good weapons and overthrowing their masters with the weight of numbers ;)

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by gjc8

Notably, it was not their primary weapon.

The sword was the primary weapon of relatively few true warriors - it was expensive and was relatively poor at penetrating armor. The big advantage to it was that it was quick, versatile, and good for defense. Axes, hammers, maces, flails, spears, polearms... all of these offer specific (and usually desirable) advantages over the sword.

[Dunadin777]

Originally Posted by Bruno

The shortsword might be more legal to carry, as a crappier weapons technology. More likely it would be LESS legal - it's cheaper and therefore more in reach of peasents, so you have more need to make it illegal to prevent peasants from arming themselves with almost-as-good weapons and overthrowing their masters with the weight of numbers ;)

I agree with your points Bruno, but I think there's also another wrinkle to consider when comparing shortswords and broadswords. Whenever one weapon becomes obsolete, there is a chance that it might become traditional of individuals and groups. Longswords, for instance, became a more popular decorative item when the rapier and musket were much more common military weapons. So in addition to slim tactical considerations, I'd also say that at TL3 or 4 a shortsword is much more likely to be a traditional weapon or decorative item, meaning it might have tailoring and jeweling, and probably be cheap quality for combat purposes.

In my current campaign, the shortsword is actually the preferred weapon of nobles fighting personal duels. As a specifically crafted anachronism, it is a status symbol that the noble can commission a blade specifically for duels, and the fact that it is impractical as a weapon of war indicates that their duelling weapon is not a utility weapon for battle. This might be called the medieval equivalent of having a closet of just shoes--once you're at that point, your means are beyond comparison to anyone without it.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Bruno

A foot of difference can be the difference between reach C and reach 1, and a pound is about a third of the weight of a Broadsword, so that's hardly inconsequential. The fact that Shortswords and Broadswords are both inside the 1 yard breakpoint is a side issue.

I'm not saying that a foot and pound cant matter, but in this case, it's not likely that they do. Also, I'll point out that I mentioned "less than a foot", and specifically meant something around 6-8". I don't feel confident giving a 65cm sword a large combat bonus over a 80cm sword. That's a mere 7" of difference, and in this case, it doesn't push the smaller sword down into range of what I would consider a "long knife", like the spartan Xiphos(which is 12-18" long). Even the shortest Pompeii models are still almost two foot in over-all length, though I guess some of the Pompeii blades could be considered "long knives", though I generally leave that to the 18" overall weapons. Historically, the weights are really close for short swords and longer swords two, much less than the full pound GURPS assumes(it's really closer to about a half pound difference, if you use the optional low-tech rules for scabbard weights). I just don't feel that, in this case, the short sword is small enough to count.

But Shortswords aren't comparable to Broadswords - Broadswords are blunt on top, Shortswords are all sharpened. Compare it to a Thrusting Broadsword, at $600 - you're looking at $200 difference, or a -33% discount, along with -33% weight discount, in exchange for a -1 to swing and damage.

Note for the future, when I say "broadsword", I always refer to the thrusting broadsword, as most swords I know of that fit the typology have sharp points. Some points are less ideal for thrusting, but I've yet to see a good example of a "blunt" thrusting tip. So I don't talk about them. I recognize the option for them to exist as a possible weapon type, i just don't refer to them in a historical sense, because I'm not aware of any that are extant.

Now, I agree with your assessment here: short swords are less expensive and lighter. That's the reason to use them. I think it's notable that the shorter Gladius variants occurred during the time when the Roman state was equipping their troops, rather than relying on a citizen levy that provided it's own equipment. Hence, I think that economy is likely the culprit, rather than the shorter sword being more effective.

Yes, a thrusting broadsword is better. It's also 50% more expensive, weighs 50% more, and is one higher TL. This is all WHY it's better. Technology marches on, and older things can indeed become obsolete.

I don't like the TL2 limit on Broadswords, for what it's worth. There are bronze swords that would be considered broadswords, from bronze age societies. I personally think that the reason most iron age swords were large, is because bronze is expensive due to the scarcity of tin, while iron is relatively common and inexpensive. So I don't subscribe to the "you cant make broadswords out of bronze" line any longer. I also don't believe greatswords are TL3, but that they only emerge as a result of TL3 armors becoming more and more resistant to smaller swords.

The shortsword might be more legal to carry, as a crappier weapons technology. More likely it would be LESS legal - it's cheaper and therefore more in reach of peasents, so you have more need to make it illegal to prevent peasants from arming themselves with almost-as-good weapons and overthrowing their masters with the weight of numbers ;)

Most peasants were permitted to own arms. Specifically in Japan, for example, the wakishazi and similar short swords were permissible to be carried by non Samurai, only the samurai were permitted the Katana, as a badge of their station.

[adm]

Another consideration is convenience, if you are doing multiple things and not just combat a smaller, shorter weapon is less in the way of doing other things, hunting, riding, more mundane jobs etc. This is more of a role playing effect than game mechanics, but is still worth mentioning.

[sir_pudding]

Logistically that $200 is going to add up. If I'm arming say light missile troops with a backup weapon, I'd probably want them to carry Shortswords (or better Long Knives) instead. Even in armies where troops are required to arm themselves, requiring them to use a cheaper weapon means the armorers can produce more of them.

[Kale]

I'm a bit of a fan of the falchion version of the shortsword as it nicely simulates a large-ish machete. It's good where you want a handy jungle or forest weapon. It can double as a crude axe for cutting vines or branches while still acting as a serviceable hacking weapon. The shortsword version is the heaviest you can go for a falchion without it being unbalanced.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Kale

I'm a bit of a fan of the falchion version of the shortsword as it nicely simulates a large-ish machete. It's good where you want a handy jungle or forest weapon.

Isn't that what most people call a scimitar?

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Isn't that what most people call a scimitar?

Some scimitars/shamshirs are made light enough that they dont really hit that much harder than a regular broadsword. Some of them are much heavier, but most arn't any worse than broadswords in their balance, they just have a curved blade.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Some scimitars/shamshirs are made light enough that they dont really hit that much harder than a regular broadsword. Some of them are much heavier, but most arn't any worse than broadswords in their balance, they just have a curved blade.

Wasn't making a comment on that 8) curved blades have their advantages 8)