shortsword vs broadsword

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

I don't really believe this: straight blades have been fairly common amongst cavalry for a long time. I honestly think there may be some minor advantage, and also the cultural implications of adopting the methods of the "turkic" horsemen who were very well regarded. Consider, for example, that most of the Cavalry imagery we know of from the 18th century is of eastern European origin

There are advantages to both styles, and the trick is finding the instances where the combination of sword, environment, tactics, and skill combine to give you the best result. With cavalry, curved swords have been the preference for a long time, except in those areas where they need to balance other issues - if you are intending to use the sword as a miniature lance in a straight charge, or if your opponents are heavily armored, or if you expect to alternate fighting on foot (all possibilities for heavy cavalry), then a straight sword is preferable. If you are expecting to attack to your sides, against lightly armored enemies, and almost entirely from horseback (all common characteristics for most light to medium cavalry), then a curved sword is your friend.

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Again, I don't like this. The Turkic peoples who introduced the curved sword "scimitar" type sword to the middle-east, and likely the west, were not unarmored, or lightly armored. The majority of them may have been poorly armored, but such is a similar truth for contemporary europe.

The question is not THEIR armor, but rather the armor of their intended targets - the majority of soldiers facing a curved sword fell into the un- or lightly- armored categories. Plus, the first issue remains - many of these people were cavalry first.

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Again, if Curved swords were so widely effective, then why do we not see a wider adoption of them? Why is the most common blade design the straight blade?

Most common where? In the west, sure, but not the east, where the majority of swords have always been curved. Heck, many people think the katana (a curved sword) is the finest sword ever made!

Still, the choice of sword is dependent upon a ton of additional factors, such as tactics, legacy, society, etc.

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Again, if Curved swords were so widely effective, then why do we not see a wider adoption of them? Why is the most common blade design the straight blade?

I recommend this article: http://www.thehaca.com/essays/nobest.htm

Any sword feature has tradeoffs, which probably match the specific uses and targets of the weapon at the time.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Again, if Curved swords were so widely effective, then why do we not see a wider adoption of them? Why is the most common blade design the straight blade?

Um. Limiting ourselves to western weapons, there's an awful lot of large knife and shortsword type weapons that have curved blades (falchion, machete, cutlass) though in many cases the curvature is fairly limited, and in longer weapons the saber and scimitar are also curved. There's also glaive-type polearms.

[nanoboy]

Just to add on to the straight vs. curved discussion, straight swords have the advantage of being able to strike with both sharpened edges. Especially with two-handed swords, there are a lot of tricks using strikes with the back edge, many of them being somewhat deceptive. I know a few myself.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by nanoboy

Just to add on to the straight vs. curved discussion, straight swords have the advantage of being able to strike with both sharpened edges. Especially with two-handed swords, there are a lot of tricks using strikes with the back edge, many of them being somewhat deceptive. I know a few myself.

Many straight swords are single edged, and some curved swords are sharpened for some or all of their "back" edge.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Most jians I've seen are much lighter than a broadsword, but in any case, that's not what's important: my point is that a jian is a thrusting sword. If you told the Chinese swords cut better, they'd look at you and say "Ok, but that's not really the point."

Chinese swords are divided into two catagories: Dual-bladed and single edged. Jian are dual-edged, Dao are single edged. Dao can be straight, and can thrust effectively.

Tips reach your opponent faster (hence the point of the rapier) than a cut. Tips are better at penetrating armor (by attacking chinks) than cuts do. Tips can attack vitals better than cuts do.

Agreed. But these swords also have typically broad blades, with two edges, that are suitable for use in cuts. Cuts produce greater power. If thrusting was the sole or even primary intent of the weapon, then why waste material and effort in producing an edge that can cut effectively and strongly?

You argue that if curved swords cut better, everyone would use them, and thus, that can't be true since Europeans and Chinese used straight swords. Setting aside your assumption that everyone adopts weapons based solely on efficiency, Europeans and Chinese didn't design straight swords because they cut better, they designed them because they thrust better.

Again, let's look at the western sword in use by the medieval europeans. Early in the period, these blades have largely parallel edges, less developed hilts and pommels, and tips that are not optimized for thrusting. These early blades are optimized for delivering powerful cuts, capable of shearing limbs and cleaving open bodies. Can they be used to thrust with? Surely they can.

Now, around 1200 AD and later, we begin seeing some changes to these swords. Blades become narrower, with rapid tapers towards the point, distal tips also start becoming far more common. Both of these features shift the balance of the sword, allowing greater point control, but also pushing the "point of percussion", where the sword can strike best in a cut, further back along the blade than in earlier swords. We also see greater designs of pommels that again, shift the balance to allow for great tip control. We ALSO see the emergence of "thumb-rings", allowing greater point control for thrusting.

We can see a clear evolution of western European swords through the edges, with the thrust becoming more important as the amount and degree of armor's protectiveness increases. John Clements has a wonderful book regarding medieval swordsmanship, one I would consider pretty much required reading on this subject. John Clements, if you don't know, is the direct of the ARMA, so he's hardly a hack.

Most "chopping" swords and knives I've seen have some kind of curve to them: It's hardly controversial to argue that they're superior for cutting. What I find strange is that you're trying to suggest that people used straight swords primarily for cutting, and that a weapons ability to cutting would determine whether or not it would be adopted.

I'm again referring to John Clements, primarily, who spends the majority of his work on medieval swordsmanship in discussing the importance of the Cut as compared to the thrust. There are also historical documents from ages past that describe these swords being used to cut(sometimes, also to thrust), and the design of many of these swords lack the features that would make them ideal for thrusting. Particularly, the swords of the migration period, are largely used to cut, rather than to thrust.

EDIT: As for earlier blades, the Romans had thrusting swords and greatly believed in the thrust.

They also greatly believed in the use of the cut. I believe Polybius and Dionyssius of Syracuse both describe Romans using the cut effectively: Polybius describes the horror experienced by the Macedonians when they confrot corpses that have had their limbs and torsos savagely hacked by blades. Dionyssios describes the romans using the thrust against the vitals, unless the target is armored or defends his vitals well, in which case he describes the romans striking at the limbs, specifically the joint of the knee to cripple their opponents. Early gladius hispanis have designs that are quite suitable for cutting, as well as thrusting, while later Galdius patterns grow progressively shorter, and become more suitable for thrusting, and then the Spatha, a longer blade suitable for powerful cuts becomes increasingly popular.

No doubt the early europeans used similar weapons because they were influenced by roman tradition, and also because (I suspect) straight blades are easier to craft than curved blades).

I doubt this. Most references I've seen suggest that the spatha is an weapon adopted from the longer, cutting blades of the auxilaries, specifically the Germanic ones who became an increasingly popular component of the roman military, eventually becoming so endemic that the greatest of roman generals were half-german(Aetius, for example).

I'm also not sure as to the difficulty of crafting a straight blade over a curved blade. But I don't have much experience there, and I'm not going to jump to conclusions base on hunches and suspicions.

It also occurs to me that your argument, turned around, doesn't make any sense either. If curved blades aren't better for some things, then why did those cultures go out of their way to make them?

They didn't? Curved blades, when adopted, appear to have been a late adoption, and largely influenced by the turkic migration, much like the other trappings of modern western cavalry(the uniforms, but also the tactics and orginization). The Dao becomes a popular cavalry weapon during the Han dynasty, for a number of reasons. But most Dao are not dramatically curved, but have a slight curve. The Kilij style saber or it's predecessors seems to have been popular amongst the turkic peoples from the 8th century, and the Avars may have introduced it into europe, though it doesn't seem to have been popular enough to displace native, straight sword designs.

There may indeed be some advantage to the curved blade used from horseback, but it may not have been as major an advantage as you would imply: otherwise it would have been more widely and popularly adopted, rather than co-existing for hundreds, and sometimes thousands of years alongside straight bladed weapons. Straight bladed weapons appear to have been generally more popular, and even when we see many of the early shamshir/kilij patterns, they are not dramatically curved, but possess a slight curve.

My point, through-out this is not that curved swords are inferior or better, but that they are largely similar, and possess few if any notable benefits. Particularly, most of the Curved blades we know of, appear to have been adopted by cultures that came into contact with the migrations of the various turkic people. This may have been as much a cultural issue as a practical one: These peoples(Huns, Avars, Khazars, Seljuks, Pechenegs, Magyars, etc) had a reputation as ferocious horsemen, and used the curved blade widely. Perhaps it was more effective from horseback, or perhaps it has an "ethnic-badass" quality to it.

In any case, I don't think the advantages are so large or noticable that such weapons can be conclusively stated to be "superior". Even after western cavalry adopted curved cavalry savers, several of them(such as the 1821 pattern british heavy cavalry saber) have VERY slight curvature to their blade. If the curve is such an advantage, why does it not seem to have been so widely used?

Curve blades of the tip-heavy, unbalanced variety have been popular, often concurrant alongside straight swords. I don't question their effectiveness: when one handles a kopi, kukri or messer, one can feel the balance in the blade, the heft and power of the swing. When one holds a Shamshir or katana with a largely balanced, but curved blade, you don't really feel the same sort of percussive power, and they do not demonstrate the same performance.

Perhaps the chief advantage of the curved blade is that it is easy to draw from a sitting or mounted posture. I certainly have had less trouble drawing a katana or shamshir from a seated position, than I have with a european "knightly sword". This could be an important issue if you primarily fight from horseback, rather than on foot.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Icelander

This fits my knowledge.

As a result, I tend to give significantly curved swords a +1 to cut damage only against unarmoured foes. Also gives a +1 to the Cavalry Training Technique. As an option, it may be balanced to give +1 to skill when slashing and -1 to skill when thrusting, but this is not necessary. The drawback is a -1 to impaling damage over a similar straight sword.

It is a myth. There hasn't been a single scientifically conducted test that noted any difference at all.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

There are advantages to both styles, and the trick is finding the instances where the combination of sword, environment, tactics, and skill combine to give you the best result. With cavalry, curved swords have been the preference for a long time, except in those areas where they need to balance other issues - if you are intending to use the sword as a miniature lance in a straight charge, or if your opponents are heavily armored, or if you expect to alternate fighting on foot (all possibilities for heavy cavalry), then a straight sword is preferable. If you are expecting to attack to your sides, against lightly armored enemies, and almost entirely from horseback (all common characteristics for most light to medium cavalry), then a curved sword is your friend.

Again, I will point out that the peoples most widely using the kilij/shamshir style blades, were facing heavily armored opponents, often. At the time of the Hunnic invasions(the earliest wave of the turkic migrations), the Sassanid Persians fielded the worlds heaviest cavalry. I think it's also notable that over the same time period, the favored melee weapon of the heavy cavalry was the heavy, all-metal, four-cornered mace.

It is a strange myth that eastern cavalry were all lightly armed horse archers, many of the noblest of these men fought as dedicated shock infantry, armed with lances, covered in head to toe with mail armor, and riding powerful, strong horses. Even the Mongols made extensive use of heavily armored shock cavalry.

And I'd like you to back up your statement that curved, balanced(rather than curved, unbalanced swords like the kopis, machira and falchion) have been long used by cavalry: the straight bladed, dual-edged sword has a longer history than the curved, balanced blade.

The question is not THEIR armor, but rather the armor of their intended targets - the majority of soldiers facing a curved sword fell into the un- or lightly- armored categories. Plus, the first issue remains - many of these people were cavalry first.

Turkic ghulams are widely credited with introducing the curved, balanced blade into the middle-east. What were the primary opponents of these ghulams, but also their free turkic brethren? Heavily armored Perso-Arab cavalry, heavily armored crusader cavalry, heavily armored Roman cavalry and heavily armored Ghulams. Is it any wonder then, that the all-metal, four cournered mace was used extensively? Is it a coincidence that western knights and Roman cavalry used the mace extensively as well, and also faced commonly well armored cavalry?

Most common where? In the west, sure, but not the east, where the majority of swords have always been curved. Heck, many people think the katana (a curved sword) is the finest sword ever made!

Wrong. The jian(double-edged, straight blade) serves as the oldest example of Chinese swords, and was quite common for a long period. The Dao is a later development, and appears to have been popular amongst the Han, who confronted the various Turkic people to their north. In fact, the consolidation of power by the Han, and the creation of the great wall, maybe have helped to trigger the great wave of Turkic migrations.

And I couldn't care one whit if many people think the Katana is the finest weapon made: few people are well educated in this fold, and will readily believe anything they are fed. Heck, many people think western swords weight 10 or 15 pounds each! Or that western knights were so encumbered by their armor that they were helpless if knocked to the ground.

Particularly, let's talk Japan! Prior to the adaption of the curved sword(around 1000 AD), the primary sword was a straight-bladed sword. This is truth, historical and archaeological fact.

To turn back to western swords: early western blades, as I've repeated, for like the third time, were often primarily intended for cutting, not for thrusting. There are design elements by which one can identify the primary use of a sword, and those which point towards a reliance on the thrust are generally absent in western blades prior to the 13th century.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

There may indeed be some advantage to the curved blade used from horseback, but it may not have been as major an advantage as you would imply: otherwise it would have been more widely and popularly adopted, rather than co-existing for hundreds, and sometimes thousands of years alongside straight bladed weapons.

Woah, back up there. I didn't imply anything about the advantage of a curved sword vs a straight sword. You argued that if curved swords were really better at cutting, then everyone would use them, and you're arguing that again. I'm arguing that your argument is nonsense: A) there are many reasons people use inferior weapons and B) it's highly probable that given people chose a particular style of blade for reasons other than its ability to cut.

You're trying to prove that a straight blade can cut just as well as a curved blade, fine. But you can't prove that by pointing to what people did or did not use. The ability to cut is not the sole determining factor to what weapon an army chooses. For example, spears are absolutely atrocious at cutting, and yet armies vastly prefer them to swords, straight or curved.

There are other, better ways to support your claim. Dan is using science. Perhaps you should try something like that, rather than saying "Well, Europeans didn't use curved swords, and they totally would if they had even a marginal benefit to cutting over straight."

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

It is a myth. There hasn't been a single scientifically conducted test that noted any difference at all.

Most such tests I've heard of are cutting tests against various materials, not tests of slicing against flesh.

Note that against anyone wearing furs or heavy wet clothing, the shape of the sword will be mostly irrelevant.