shortsword vs broadsword

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

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

I think their advantages are below GURPS resolution though. But, then again, I've never used a shamshir/scimitar. I've used a katana and a longsword(Both shoddy) against a variety of materials, and I didn't notice any major "curve" advantage.

I'd largely just consider them as good as a broadsword. A curved blade has some interesting potential with thrusts against opponents who are used to straight blades, as some angles of attack they wouldn't consider dangerous can still connect. But at the same time, there's some difficulty with the curved blade in directing those thrusts.

But I largely write off the "curved cuts better" thing.

[chris1982]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

I think their advantages are below GURPS resolution though. But, then again, I've never used a shamshir/scimitar. I've used a katana and a longsword(Both shoddy) against a variety of materials, and I didn't notice any major "curve" advantage.

I'd largely just consider them as good as a broadsword. A curved blade has some interesting potential with thrusts against opponents who are used to straight blades, as some angles of attack they wouldn't consider dangerous can still connect. But at the same time, there's some difficulty with the curved blade in directing those thrusts.

But I largely write off the "curved cuts better" thing.

So because you personally toyed around with some weapons you dismiss common military knowledge from over 2000 years?

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by chris1982

So because you personally toyed around with some weapons you dismiss common military knowledge from over 2000 years?

Common military knowledge? I one said that a Kopis, Falchion, Maikaria or similar weapon has a greater cutting ability? I'd believe that.

But the Shamshir/Scimitar competed with straight blades through-out much of it's region. If curved swords were really more effective at cutting/slashing, I'd expect to see them occur more often. Even amongst the Chinese, where lacquered leather armor was very common in the warring states period, the Jian straight sword was far more commong than curved swords.

What is this common militarty knowledge you speak of? Is there some tradition of lightweight curved blades that are largely well balanced amongst their length? Because the Shamshir/Kilij/Scimitar/Saif curved blade didn't show up for a very long time, and was never adopted widely in Europe. If the blade was more effective at cutting, why was it not widely adopted in other civilizations and cultures, for more than 2000 year?

The simple straight sword of about 36" in length and aproximately 2lbs of weight remained the primary arm of Europe and the middle east from 1000 BC to 1000 AD. Were their curved blades? Yes, they were, though, particularly, in europe, those curved blades were often very heavily weighted towards the tip(See the Grossmesser), rather than simply having a curved blade.

In the East, Straight swords were the primary weapon from the warring states period, well into the Yamato period(so, about 1700 years), before the Dao(a very tip heavy blade, like the falchion) or Katana became popular.

So again, what is this "military wisdom" you speak of? I'm aware that some people have suggested that curved blades "slash" better, but I'm not aware of a widespread adoption of curved blades, except in some specific circumstances. Particularly, a large number of the very popular "curved" swords were tip-heavy designs, while the scimitar/shamshir/saif emerged after the 10th century AD, as far as I'm aware.

Falchion
Messer
Dao
Kilij
Shamshir
Saif

I think one can notice that the ordering of these swords is from "tip heavy, broad slashing blade" to "thin, balanced blade".

I would consider a penalty for someone used to facing a straight blade parrying a thrust from a curved blade such as a shamshir/saif/kilij, but i would also impose a penalty on thrusting attacks made with such a weapon. But as far as cutting goes? I just don't buy it. There's precious few examples of the curved, balanced blade being used over the straight blade. And with a great deal of curved blades being much straighter than some of the examples I posted, I'm pretty sure that there's something amiss.

Notably, curved swords didn't over-take straight ones for western cavalry for a long, long time. And I think a significant portion of the "curved" blades preferred may have been preferred for their association with Turkic horsemen, who were quite renowned for a long period.

So again, I say this: the straight bladed sword, roughly 3 feet in length and around 2 pounds in length was widely used through-out most of the world for nearly 2000 years. If the curved sword was so superior, why then was it not more widely used, especially by civilizations that favored mounted combat(Goths, Vandals, Samartians, Gauls, Persians prior to the Turkic invasions...). Why is it that the curved blade doesn't show up widely untill the last thousand years of our history?

Are there differences between curved swords and straight swords? Sure, there are. But I don't think those differences are notable enough to be worked into GURPS rules. So until I see a good reason, I will continue to consider most Scimitars, Kilij, Saif and Shamshirs to be broadswords. They just have a different look(which, according to LT60, "facing a new way to die" could result in a penalty for the unfamiliar victim). Also note that in Low-tech, all of these weapons may be thrusting broadswords, as well as cavalry sabers, with some exceptions being the inferior cavalry saber.

[DanHoward]

The main advantage of a curved blade is that it seems to be more maneuverable on horseback. There is no cutting advantage compared to a straight blade that has a similar balance and weight. You lose a bit of reach but it is easier to deceive your opponent as to exactly where the point is. All are below GURPS level of granularity.

[Dangerious P. Cats]

Having test cut with both strait bladed and curved swords (longswords, broadsword, curved sabre and katanas if you were wondering) I've not really noted a difference in the cutting power. The main difference between curved and strait bladed swords in terms of performance is how they handal when blades clash. Also the tip on curved swords is much harder to get around (grr).

[cosmicfish]

I was always led to believe that curved swords had two big advantages over straight swords:

1) When a sword is swung well at a person or thing, the impact on a straight sword will be normal (as in "right angle") to the blade, maximizing the amount of energy delivered to the target but also producing the greatest "jar" at the grip. Conversely, a curved sword will impact at an oblique angle, reducing the energy transfer but also dramatically reducing the difficulty in holding the sword. In infantry combat this is a small issue, but in mounted combat you are already delivering more than adequate power to the cut and a straight sword is far more likely to get jarred out of your grasp. This is why so many cavalries ended up using curved swords even when no one else in their culture did.

2) While a curved sword delivers less energy at the initial impact, the automatic redirection of the blade allows the holder to continue to add energy to the cut, dragging the blade across the target. While this is just about useless against an armored target, against an unarmored target this allows for long and still deep cuts that have a chance to impact more muscles and organs. This is why so many cultures that used no (or minimal) armor favored curved swords.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

There is, it's -4 to skill for each point of reach.

May I ask you to quote the page? I'm not arguing, just asking for information. Thanks.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Common military knowledge? I one said that a Kopis, Falchion, Maikaria or similar weapon has a greater cutting ability? I'd believe that.

But the Shamshir/Scimitar competed with straight blades through-out much of it's region. If curved swords were really more effective at cutting/slashing, I'd expect to see them occur more often. Even amongst the Chinese, where lacquered leather armor was very common in the warring states period, the Jian straight sword was far more commong than curved swords.

What is this common militarty knowledge you speak of? Is there some tradition of lightweight curved blades that are largely well balanced amongst their length? Because the Shamshir/Kilij/Scimitar/Saif curved blade didn't show up for a very long time, and was never adopted widely in Europe. If the blade was more effective at cutting, why was it not widely adopted in other civilizations and cultures, for more than 2000 year?

The simple straight sword of about 36" in length and aproximately 2lbs of weight remained the primary arm of Europe and the middle east from 1000 BC to 1000 AD. Were their curved blades? Yes, they were, though, particularly, in europe, those curved blades were often very heavily weighted towards the tip(See the Grossmesser), rather than simply having a curved blade.

In the East, Straight swords were the primary weapon from the warring states period, well into the Yamato period(so, about 1700 years), before the Dao(a very tip heavy blade, like the falchion) or Katana became popular.

So again, what is this "military wisdom" you speak of? I'm aware that some people have suggested that curved blades "slash" better, but I'm not aware of a widespread adoption of curved blades, except in some specific circumstances. Particularly, a large number of the very popular "curved" swords were tip-heavy designs, while the scimitar/shamshir/saif emerged after the 10th century AD, as far as I'm aware.

Hold on, where does "Slashes better" translate into "is a better weapon?" The purpose of a jian is much the same as the purpose of a rapier: to stab the other guy, often with very long thrusts. Some traditions prefer hacking people, some prefer stabbing. Both have their advantages. I think it's perfectly reasonable to state that a curved blade "slashes better," but that you'll stick with a straight sword "because you prefer impaling damage."

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

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.

I thought the daisho was the badge of honor, and that anyone could use katanas if they wanted to.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

I was always led to believe that curved swords had two big advantages over straight swords:

1) When a sword is swung well at a person or thing, the impact on a straight sword will be normal (as in "right angle") to the blade, maximizing the amount of energy delivered to the target but also producing the greatest "jar" at the grip. Conversely, a curved sword will impact at an oblique angle, reducing the energy transfer but also dramatically reducing the difficulty in holding the sword. In infantry combat this is a small issue, but in mounted combat you are already delivering more than adequate power to the cut and a straight sword is far more likely to get jarred out of your grasp. This is why so many cavalries ended up using curved swords even when no one else in their culture did.

2) While a curved sword delivers less energy at the initial impact, the automatic redirection of the blade allows the holder to continue to add energy to the cut, dragging the blade across the target. While this is just about useless against an armored target, against an unarmored target this allows for long and still deep cuts that have a chance to impact more muscles and organs. This is why so many cultures that used no (or minimal) armor favored curved swords.

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.

See Cavalry Sabre as an example of a sword for which I use those rules. It does -1 imp damage relative to a Broadsword, but I give it the +1 cut against DR 0 and +1 to Cavalry Training Technique to compensate.