LogFAQs > #962096140

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	I remember there was something a while back about the best sword?
Zeus 01/26/22 2:04:08 PM #34:	DragonClaw01 posted... I greatly disagree with this logic. If anything, thrust makes more sense on a battlefield due to the close quarters nature of combat. It is hard to do much more than an overhand chop in a formation and even then that is kind of dangerous unless you are using some type of polearm like a halberd or something. That is why most infantry weapons were spears or thrusting swords such as gladius. It allows for a really tight formation that is hard to defeat, well at least until guns entered the picture. Plus it makes the combat much more linear so it is easier to land your thrusts. A circling opponent will be harder to land up line up a good thrust with. ...you're talking about "the close quarters nature of combat" then bringing up spears, which makes zero sense. Then you're citing far-earlier weapon use (prior to the rapier's invention -- the gladius (which, by the way, is ALSO a slashing sword and was often a back-up weapon) only predates the rapier by thousands of years -- and scenarios like formation fighting where, afaik, the rapier was never used (nor would it be used, because it's not a great battlefield weapon given the obvious issues with a long thin blade -- I mean, seriously, look at those other penetrating weapon you cited: spears had a relatively short blade, the gladius has a short (wide) blade, and bayonets are a short blade -- among other reasons, over-penetration was an issue and there was a benefit tot causing a larger wound). DragonClaw01 posted... Rapiers were popular on the battlefield until the bayonet came into existence. Napoleons musketeers where equipped with rapiers for instance and the swiss guard still carry rapiers today. It wasn't exactly uncommon on the battlefield Uh....? https://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm Napoleon's musketeers used sabers, not rapiers. And Napoleon's forces had bayonets. When you made both claims, I was scratching my head because I've never heard that claimed nor seen it depicted in historical fiction. DragonClaw01 posted... Mainland Europe had a disposition towards rapiers, Offhand, I can't think of one nation that favored them over sabers as a battlefield weapon, but it might have been a lesser player. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:962096140] in I remember... [t:79852934]...</cite> <quote>DragonClaw01 posted... </cite> <quote>I greatly disagree with this logic. If anything, thrust makes more sense on a battlefield due to the close quarters nature of combat. It is hard to do much more than an overhand chop in a formation and even then that is kind of dangerous unless you are using some type of polearm like a halberd or something. That is why most infantry weapons were spears or thrusting swords such as gladius. It allows for a really tight formation that is hard to defeat, well at least until guns entered the picture. Plus it makes the combat much more linear so it is easier to land your thrusts. A circling opponent will be harder to land up line up a good thrust with.</quote> ...you're talking about "the close quarters nature of combat" then bringing up spears, which makes zero sense. Then you're citing far-earlier weapon use (prior to the rapier's invention -- the gladius (which, by the way, is ALSO a slashing sword and was often a back-up weapon) only predates the rapier by thousands of years -- and scenarios like formation fighting where, afaik, the rapier was never used (nor would it be used, because it's not a great battlefield weapon given the obvious issues with a long thin blade -- I mean, seriously, look at those other penetrating weapon you cited: spears had a relatively short blade, the gladius has a short (wide) blade, and bayonets are a short blade -- among other reasons, over-penetration was an issue and there was a benefit tot causing a larger wound). DragonClaw01 posted... </cite> <quote>Rapiers were popular on the battlefield until the bayonet came into existence. Napoleons musketeers where equipped with rapiers for instance and the swiss guard still carry rapiers today. It wasn't exactly uncommon on the battlefield</quote> Uh....? https://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm Napoleon's musketeers used sabers, not rapiers. And Napoleon's forces had bayonets. When you made both claims, I was scratching my head because I've never heard that claimed nor seen it depicted in historical fiction. DragonClaw01 posted... </cite> <quote>Mainland Europe had a disposition towards rapiers,</quote> Offhand, I can't think of one nation that favored them over sabers as a battlefield weapon, but it might have been a lesser player. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1