- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Weapons sperging general
- Thread starter Tranhuviya
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2015
Koncerz prove two things.
Hussars were all insane and the sabre is the master race on swords. (it's a really fucking long sabre)
Hussars were all insane and the sabre is the master race on swords. (it's a really fucking long sabre)
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
I think that is a little misleading because woldn't the same problem occur for bladed weapons in sheaths
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2015
If you want to be totally a nerd on "sharpest"
Obsidian.
Can get down to 3 microns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian#Current_use
Obsidian.
Can get down to 3 microns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian#Current_use
- Joined
- May 27, 2014
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
Also Damascus steel swords were the sharpest swords and far better than katanas
The thing is what we call "Damascus Steel" today is very different from historical Damascus Steel. What we call Damascus Steel is simply pattern welded steel made of steels with different carbon contents to give it that wavy pattern of various shade of gray. Historical Damascus Steel was similar, but the process has been lost to the ages, though there are a few historical metalurgists and sword smiths that have been trying to recreate the historical process.
Sadly, a lot of what is sold as "Damascus Steel" is actually cheap and poorly heat treated. It looks pretty, but won't hold up to much moderately heavy use. If you see a blade that is described as Damascus Steel and it's only a couple hundred bucks or less then you know it's junk, usually from Pakistan or India and poorly heat treated, if it's heat treated at all. Good, handmade, properly heat treated modern Damascus Steel will run you $1000 for a medium sized knife to several thousand dollars for a sword.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
It is pretty understood now that there was vanadium in the ore that caused it to be like that
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
Right, but a lot of the rest of the process is still unkown. While they've gotten close, no one thus far has replicated historical Damascus Steel exactly.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
I have always thought that it was weird that people like swords so much not realizing that a spear will always beat a sword
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2015
Swords are "cooler" in media and a sign of importance in some cultures a higher class as well.
So yes, while any of us spergs know swords were back ups, secondaries and or niche weapons but for what ever reason swords (my personal guess is dueling) became "cool"
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
This thread needs some real American weapons
- Joined
- May 25, 2015
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
We should send them back to where they came from.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
Polearms are very cool and superior to swords for the same reason firearms are; they give the wielder a range advantage over a sword. A guy with a sword can't run you through or decapitate you if he can't get close to you.
Many glaives and halberds had hooks or spikes on the back of the blade so that a foot soldier could pull a knight or cavalry soldier off their mount and then kill them while they were struggling to get up off the ground. The only shortcoming of polearms like that are they can't be used in close quarters.
All weapons have their purposes and their shorcomings. Swords don't have range, but you can block and parry with them and you have more use able blade. Polearms like glaives, halberds and pikes have a range advantage, have a long shaft that allows their blade to pack a huge whallop, and can put a foot soldier on at least equal footing to a knight or cavalry soldier, but suck in close quarters. Bows and crossbows have even more range and cause a lot of damage, but have a finite ammunition supply, require skill to be accurate with, and can usually be stopped by plate armor.
Many glaives and halberds had hooks or spikes on the back of the blade so that a foot soldier could pull a knight or cavalry soldier off their mount and then kill them while they were struggling to get up off the ground. The only shortcoming of polearms like that are they can't be used in close quarters.
All weapons have their purposes and their shorcomings. Swords don't have range, but you can block and parry with them and you have more use able blade. Polearms like glaives, halberds and pikes have a range advantage, have a long shaft that allows their blade to pack a huge whallop, and can put a foot soldier on at least equal footing to a knight or cavalry soldier, but suck in close quarters. Bows and crossbows have even more range and cause a lot of damage, but have a finite ammunition supply, require skill to be accurate with, and can usually be stopped by plate armor.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
I think that's basically it. One-on-one fights were very rare, especially during actual warfare situations. But they're much more photogenic.
Although I think a big part of it is that most of us learn about these things primarily through fantasy (LOTR et al) and Tolkien and his imitators based their writing off historical fallacies rather than actual history. So they made swords the default.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
They also allow you to hold a position, especially if you're backed up by a formation using polearms strategically.
This is part of why I wonder why these fat fucks are always into swords. They'd be fucking useless with a sword.
However, with a polearm, their weight would actually be an advantage. Plant the base of a long polearm like a pike in the ground and use their weight to hold it down, and in a formation, a group of these lardasses could be formidable without even any real skill.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
That's presuming they can keep their grip on the polearm when something heavy smacks into it. Which is not easy.