shortsword vs broadsword

[Bibiribobiri]

Is there any reason why i should choose a shortsword over a broadsword? (other than having a low ST or being $100 poorer)?

What are the advantages of the shortsword?

I think that, in hystory , it was used for very close range encounters or to fight in tight conditions (ex: a roman legion). But in gurps i dont know any rule that whould make it better than a broadsword for that.

[chris1982]

Well, to be honest there is none... I also never saw a char using a shortsword if broadswords were available...

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Bibiribobiri

Is there any reason why i should choose a shortsword over a broadsword? (other than having a low ST or being $100 poorer)?

What are the advantages of the shortsword?

I think that, in hystory , it was used for very close range encounters or to fight in tight conditions (ex: a roman legion). But in gurps i dont know any rule that whould make it better than a broadsword for that.

I'm using Low Tech (since it essentially erratas the weapon list), just so you know.

You'd use a shortsword if:

• You're in a TL 1, rather than TL 2, setting
• You're physically weaker (ST 10 and 3 lbs vs ST 8 and 2 lbs)
• You want to spend less and...
• Get the same Thrusting damage (both the shortsword and the broadsword are Thr+1 imp)

If you're using GURPS Martial Arts and using A Matter Of Inches, a shortsword generally draws faster than a broadsword

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

You'd use a shortsword if:

• You're in a TL 1, rather than TL 2, setting
• You're physically weaker (ST 10 and 3 lbs vs ST 8 and 2 lbs)
• You want to spend less and...
• Get the same Thrusting damage (both the shortsword and the broadsword are Thr+1 imp)

In many setting, a shortsword is he standard accessory for any man who isn't a slave or a religious noncombatant (or atheistic or scular noncombatant, such as a philosopher), to the point where not carrying one raises all kinds of serious and unpleasant questions.

At the same time, carrying a heavier weapon, like a broadsword, or mace, makes people afraid if you, in the negative sense of the word. You come acros as a barbarian, and/or potentially violent. A troublemaker. You might get watched, or openly followed by several militia or city guard members, or asked to peace bond your broadsword. Only a psycho lugs around heavy iron.

It's all about signals. Looking just right. Masculine, but not barbarian. Not quite as bad as wearing full plate armour when visiting the city, but in the same neighbourhood.

(In other settings, of course, a heavy weapon is the standard male accessory, and shortswords are silly knives carried by effeminate southeners. GURPS should perhaps have Social Stigma (non-combatant) -5 CPs to reflect this, for use in sufficiently violent/testosteronic settings.)

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Bibiribobiri

Is there any reason why i should choose a shortsword over a broadsword? (other than having a low ST or being $100 poorer)?

Nope. Short swords are inferior. Take'em if you're cheap or weak, otherwise, go with a real sword.

What are the advantages of the shortsword?

They're cheap! That's a pretty hefty advantage! And they are lightweight, if you primarily use another mode of combat(archery, spear, polearm), having a lightweight back-up weapon isn't a bad idea.

I think that, in hystory , it was used for very close range encounters or to fight in tight conditions (ex: a roman legion). But in gurps i dont know any rule that whould make it better than a broadsword for that.

There shouldn't be a rule, because shortswords were rarely used by the legions themselves. The Earlier Gladius tended to be longer than the later imperial versions, on that very blurry edge of "shortsword...sword" territory. The roman legionaries themselves fought in a looser formation than people commonly assume(3 foot spacing, or 6 foot, 3 foot is more likely), rather than in a dense, tight formation. Hoplites, especially spartans, sometimes used a "long knife" style weapon, but they fought in an extremely dense formation.

In my own campaigns, I've done away with the short sword skill entirely. I use Knife, One Handed Sword, and Two-handed sword. If the weapon is smaller than 24" in overall length, it's a knife. If it's longer than that, and used in one handed, it's a sword. I use familiarity penalties for melee weapons(something most folk dont) based on hilt( Cruciform vs Round Hilt vs. "S-shell" hilt), Blade typology(long, short, broad, distal-tip, curved, straight, for example) and weight. A swordsman who has trained with short-bladed sword with a round hilt, if he picks up a knightly sword that has a cruciform hilt and a long, narrow blade, he gets -4 to his sword skill until he has familiarized himself. For example, a roman legionaire who uses a mainz pattern gladius("short sword"), but picks up a Spatha from an auxilary, would be at a -2 to skill(short vs. long blade, same hilt) untill he practiced with the weapon for a while.

The shortsword has typically been a weapon of common people, the poor, a secondary weapon for support troops, or a back-up weapon. Longer blades have been in vogue for a very long time, and served alongside short swords in many classes, gradually displacing them from the primary arm. I'd hazard the guess that this could mean that short swords didn't stand up to the test of the battlefield as well.

[gjc8]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Hoplites, especially spartans, sometimes used a "long knife" style weapon, but they fought in an extremely dense formation.

Notably, it was not their primary weapon.

[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.

[Bibiribobiri]

i just think that there should be a penalty for figthing with a large sword in a tight place or formation.

Or maybe give a shortsword less penalty to stab in close combat..

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Bibiribobiri

i just think that there should be a penalty for figthing with a large sword in a tight place or formation.

Or maybe give a shortsword less penalty to stab in close combat..

There already is When use a Reach 1, or Reach 1-2, but not for Reach C,1 or C

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Bibiribobiri

i just think that there should be a penalty for figthing with a large sword in a tight place or formation.

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. Either close-combat/tight formation fighting wasn't prevalent enough for short swords to be popular weapons, or they weren't quite effective in close-combat.

People who fought in dense formations appear to have preferred spears, which allow them to fight far more effectively.

Or maybe give a shortsword less penalty to stab in close combat..

A simple house rule is to give the shortsword half the penalty of a longer sword(so -2, rather than -4). I don't like it, but it's an option.