Swords: Curved edge vs Straight edge - The great battle of nerdkind.

[The Lizard Queen]

So swords.

This came up in a roleplaying campaign I was involved in, and it seems like there are few other objects that can so readily define the difference in Western or Eastern settings as the shape of the local blades.

Sure, both cultures used both kinds of swords, but there's an undeniable trend toward a particular style both visible in history and culture.
You see a straight sword, you're in European inspired knights and armor territory.
A curved sword? You start thinking of katanas and scimitars and other eastern trappings.

So, what must be discussed, which kind is better? Is one even better than another?
And which do you personally prefer?

 

[Agarathium1066]

There are actually a good number of curved swords in European medieval history and loads more in antiquity, they're super neat. It really depends on what you're aiming to use them for, curved swords saw more use on horseback as being able to more effectively cleave down or at an angle was good for their build. You'll still see history where curved swords saw some use on foot as well of course so its not a hard rule.

I wouldn't really say any is objectively better in every regard, I like Messers that are sort've a mix of a falchion and a western sword. Why? I just think they're neat.

 

[Indefinite_Ordered_Sets]

Did you considering the curved edge or the curved body of weapon?
Also, did you or did you not in one point in time served at Whiterun?
If gods gave you two hands, would you be using both for your weapon?

 

[WeWuzFinns]

Straight and thin blade that can be slipped trough armor to piece some poor nigga

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

How homophobic.

All blade shapes are valid and beautiful. A straight blade is by no means superior to any other shape.

I'm literally shaking right now

 

[Dialtone]

Sabers are cool

 

[Heather Mason]

I always thought curved swords were better for slashing and cutting and were pretty useless against someone in heavy armor like a full plate set. Straight swords seem better for chopping and stabbing, depending on the blade length, and you could more easily slip the point between gaps in armor

Maybe some HEMA fag can enlighten us? Or call us retards and explain that polearms are the apex of melee combat?

 

[Solid Snek]

The answer is, as always, CONTEXT.

Maybe some HEMA fag can enlighten us? Or call us retards and explain that polearms are the apex of melee combat?

Polearms are only the best melee weapon in the right context.

That said, yes, polearms are superior to swords in a wider variety of contexts, and thus could be said to be "the apex" of melee combat.

If these videos are too long to watch, I could summarize some of their findings.

 

[Eydallur]

This particular dead horse has already taken way more beatings than warranted.

Japs had a preference for curved swords because
1. Extremely conservative culture, the design went unchanged for a thousand years. Altering the design would've been dishonarubru.
2. They were seldom used against armored opponents, de-emphasizing importance of thrusting qualities. Even when armored, combatants would be wearing thin/partial suits of armor made from typically leather with perhaps some iron reinforcement, not the heavy plate or mail that was commonplace in european theaters of war.
3. They were exclusively carried by an elite aristocratic class due to the complexity and cost of the smelting and forging process, owing to the lack of quality iron ore in Japan, this meant most of the development in arms and tactics throughout Japan's history was focused on the weapons that made a decisive difference in battle, such as the yari and naginata which were carried by (peasant) line infantry.
4. The japanese never gave up on their chivalric traditions until perhaps the Meiji era, to most samurai the idea of fighting another samurai with anything other than their sword was unthinkable. European knights were constantly inventing new and creative ways of caving each other's heads in with all manner of implements that weren't swords.

The katana belonged to a particular tradition, forged by particular circumstance, carried by particular men, drawn for particular purpose. It served that role well.
If Japan had been off the coast of Brittany and been involved in fighting european wars with access to broadly speaking the same materials, they too would have adapted to the military trends of the region. The same would be true if say for example britons had been transplanted to Hokkaido.

 

[Cabelaz]

They've got curved swords. CURVED. SWORDS.

 

[Penis Drager]

Curved swords are typically superior slashing weapons. Straight swords are typically for thrusting.

 

[The Last Stand]

Nothing can beat the axe.

 

[totallyrandomusername]

Curved swords are typically superior slashing weapons. Straight swords are typically for thrusting.

Hence, if your duck sword is severely curved, you slash at the gash, rather than thrusting.

 

[Solid Snek]

Curved swords are typically superior slashing weapons. Straight swords are typically for thrusting.

Many straight swords are optimized for slashing as well; the shorter, broader bladed swords of pre-13th century Medieval Europe, for instance (Oakeshott Type X-XIII). And in fact, while the term "straight swords" encapsulates a wide variety of blade profiles, the ones which were straightest (i.e. having the least pronounced degree of distal and profile taper) were generally the ones most optimized for hacking and cutting. While there are exceptions to this rule (estocs and small swords come to mind), the pattern throughout most of the Middle Ages was for the straightest straight swords to be cutting weapons, rather than thrusting weapons.

Also, while curved swords were indeed generally inferior to straight swords in terms of raw penetration, in some contexts, this was actually desirable. For example, Easton makes the point that the limited penetrative power of sabers was considered an advantage for Early Modern light cavalry, as less penetration meant there was correspondingly less chance of getting your sword stuck in a corpse. Straight swords, while stronger in the thrust, had a tendency to over-penetrate and cause problems for the wielder.

 

[ReturnedHermit]

A late 20th century cutlass of supreme craftsmanship will never let you down

 

[semiurgent]

I have some limited experience with sabre fencing (never did foil) and I honestly think cut-and-thrust blades reign supreme. Something as curved as a scimitar, as thin as a rapier or as unwieldy as a zweihander is specialized for a specific use-case. Scimitar can't cut through plate, rapier can't divert an axe blow, and by the time you've swung your zweihander you have a shortsword rammed under your armpit.

A sword that can pierce gaps in armor and also slice exposed flesh has the versatility that I think makes it the best tech. The Roman gladius is one of the best for actual usability imo, well-balanced, not too heavy and sturdy enough to put some heft behind even glancing blows. No good defensive options, but a damn good sword.

Anything who thinks bigger is better with swords has never tried to redirect one mid-swing, and anyone who thinks glorious Nippon steel will save them is SOL if they miss their slice.

 

[totallyrandomusername]

I have some limited experience with sabre fencing (never did foil) and I honestly think cut-and-thrust blades reign supreme. Something as curved as a scimitar, as thin as a rapier or as unwieldy as a zweihander is specialized for a specific use-case. Scimitar can't cut through plate, rapier can't divert an axe blow, and by the time you've swung your zweihander you have a shortsword rammed under your armpit.

A sword that can pierce gaps in armor and also slice exposed flesh has the versatility that I think makes it the best tech. The Roman gladius is one of the best for actual usability imo, well-balanced, not too heavy and sturdy enough to put some heft behind even glancing blows. No good defensive options, but a damn good sword.

Anything who thinks bigger is better with swords has never tried to redirect one mid-swing, and anyone who thinks glorious Nippon steel will save them is SOL if they miss their slice.

So, besides the gladius, what other designs do you think are superior to others? My only gripe about the gladius is the lack of cross-guard.

 

[JoseRaulChupacabra]

Only faggots and sailors fight with swords. Real men fight with polearms. Polearms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Swords

But on the subject of swords, straight or curved, the correct answer is that it depends. Also, there's more to sword character than just the blade profile. But of course, what's the point of having a discussion if we'll just sit on that fence so hard, our shit gets pushed in?

I'll give my vote to straight swords. When firearms started gaining in prominence, armor went away, but straight swords did not. Why? Cause stabby > slashy. Also, in fighting, barehands or armed or ICBMs, REACH is king when used properly.

Napoleonic Cavalry, atleast the heavy ones, carried straight swords and were trained to thrust. I can no longer find the source for the following story but I recall reading it somewhere some 10 years ago: after a battle, a French cavalry man would be covered in wounds, but was alive while a coalition(or was it britbongistani?) cavalry man would have just one (stab) wound, but was dead.

 

[Solid Snek]

Thought I should maybe add some pictures, to help non-HEMAfags see what it is I'm on about above.

These are two straight swords which are optimized primarily for cutting. If you'll notice, the profile taper - that is, the difference between the width of the blade at the handguard, and the width of the blade as it nears the tip - on both of these swords is not particularly noticeable. They've got thick, broad blades, with edges that run almost parallel to one another, and this design works very well for cutting and hacking.

Here are two more straight swords. Notice how much steeper the profile taper is; rather than keeping the edges mostly parallel, these swords are wide at the base and narrow continuously towards the tip. They're ideal for thrusting, but less efficient at cutting.

So, besides the gladius, what other designs do you think are superior to others? My only gripe about the gladius is the lack of cross-guard.

That's one of the reasons why the answer to most questions about the relative merits of historical weapons is "it depends on context".

From a Roman perspective, a gladius worked well in context, as it was intended to be used in tight formations, in conjunction with very large shields. The gladius' minimal cross-guard is of little or no consequence in such a situation, as it would be used for quick, armor-penetrating stabs, against poorly-equipped opponents standing at arm's length, while any defensive movements would be performed either by the wielder's shield, or a shield next to him.

However, were you to try and use a gladius without a shield, or worse, use a gladius in a duel-type situation, where it is one man armed with a gladius against another man armed with, say, a Scottish broadsword, you'd be at a marked disadvantage. In that context, a gladius would be ineffective.