So i tried posting this on /k/, and I was told to fuck off and

katana

>>2648229
The falchion sword was pretty well designed. Nice, broad curved blade for slashing and a thicker, straight point for thrusting. That's a good design in my opinion.

There were no bad designed swords, otherwise you wouldn't have heard of them, as they'd had been deprecated. Swords evolved with whatever the were meant to fight against.

I'd go with some fancy ass ceremonial thing wielded by some king, with no practical use.

>>2648229
The efficacy of any sword's design is going to be completely dependent on who's using it.

Might be too long or too short for you, but fucking perfect for this one weird guy with short legs and long arms.

Or maybe the blade is too curvy and you can't hit anything? Well it's a fucking cunt destroyer in the hands of this one thickset guy good at spinning on his heel and shit.

Whatever is a terrible design for you is going to be the fucking end-all, be-all, human veg-a-matic in the hands of somebody different.

>>2648229
the messer I believe, it was designed like a knife to avoid a law that only a knight could weild a sword. I'll try to find a pic.

File: messers.jpg (61KB, 900x871px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 900x871px

>>2648229

>>2648229
Designs where good and usually worked for the task they where designed for. Construction on the other hand was often shoddy, especially for cheaper blades, and copyright infractions where common.

File: nope.gif (260KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 600x338px

>>2648387
>it was designed like a knife to avoid a law that only a knight could weild a sword
Theres many reasons for the long knife, but that is not one of them.

>>2648384
yeah but there are purely decorative swords like that weird fat cone thing they use to wear on their belts for status and shit

>>2648229
The falchion was basically 2/3 sword and 1/3 ax, so it had its uses. My guess is truly shitty weapon designs have been lost to time.

File: cinquedea_1500_invalides.jpg (152KB, 768x772px)

152KB, 768x772px

>>2648437
Cinquedeas look fancy and where enjoyed for this purpose, non the less they make an efficient weapon for short and mid distances, quick on the draw, terrible wounds with both cut and thrust and excellent materials and workmanship.

File: DSC_0064.jpg (2MB, 3104x1746px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3104x1746px

>>2648437
You mean a cinquaeda ? (or whatever how you write or pronounce it)
You probably can still find a use for it

File: DSC_0047.jpg (2MB, 3104x1746px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3104x1746px

>>2648229
>>2648437
Cinquedeas*
Thanks anon

>>2648229
katana was theologically designed to be a worthless trinket

>>2648229
1796 spadroon was the worst

>>2648685
Wait I'm an idiot you said middle ages

>>2648387
Sounds like one of those made up reasons tbqh

>>2648229
tell your friend he's a faggot

>>2648229
>What was the worst designed sword during the middle ages?
There wasn't really one.

File: 1024px-Fencing_img_0466.jpg (134KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1024x1024px

>>2648229
You got 2 options,

Gladius----------Rapier & Parrying Dagger

Honourable mentions Sikh Whip Sword & Katana.

>>2650767
Missed the middle ages bit, 2 handed (crushes plate) or swashbuckler, or again, daggers when we consider all uses, diplomacies, and situations of the weapon.

>>2650775
Cloak & Dagger*

>>2648229
>>2648229
Well that a hideous piece of shit inspired by Aragorns ranger sword more than a Falchion.

The thing is that most swords everyone knows about are well designed and suit a purpose. Falchions were chopping swords like the Messer. In retrospect some of the earlier sword designs may look and seem bad but they're a product of their time when steel was shittier.

>>2650851
On second thought there's one I can think of, but it wasn't designed for war but was more a symbol of office. It was a 20 something pound greatsword that was used like a scepter to symbolize the authority of some German(?) King. It would have been unwieldy as all hell.

File: Kris_Sword.jpg (10KB, 600x291px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 600x291px

bumping /w kris

File: persian sword.jpg (52KB, 564x692px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 564x692px

>human meat cleaver

File: dagger falconer russian.jpg (28KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 564x423px

>>2648229
tooth pick

File: 48cbce951fbd1cb5607461a0753077ad.jpg (232KB, 2000x1016px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 2000x1016px

>>2648229

>>2651050
That's not a sword, it's an adorable baby glaive.

>>2651038
That would make a pretty nasty wound.

Hands down the rapier. It's pretty useless against anything that isn't a rapier, regardless of what Renaissanceaboos tell you. There's a reason it's a civilian sword and barely ever used outside the context of duelling somebody also armed with one.

>>2651732
It's also used in street fights though. It's a highly effective sword when fighting unarmoured opponents, it has range, great piercing power and it's quite heavy so you can parry with it wiell. Also it's not that hard to carry around.

>>2651745
>Also it's not that hard to carry around.
The ones that have that significant range advantage are kind a pain in the ass to carry though. The recommended length by Alfieri and Capoferro is such that the pommel reaches just under the fencers armpit. Apparently people were able to put up with it though since those long rapiers were at some point really popular for civilians.

>>2651732
I'll go with foil, for the same reasons.

>>2651732
Reach advantage means a lot in unarmored fight without large shields where one hit can easily be fight-ending. Hand protection is really important as well in the same context, and it has to be said that the increased weight at the handle (and closer point of balance to the hand) which is an inevitable consequence of increased hand protection favors thrusting and can be detrimental to cutting power. Because of all this rapier does very well against shorter cut & thrust swords in that context - unarmored duel without large shields or polearms.

As a general self-defense weapon (against surprise attacks) it may not be the best though because the draw can be fumbled more easily than with a shorter sword - moreover with a better cutting sword one can attack straight from the draw.

As a battlefield weapon it is sort of really half-assed spear - not as good reach as polearms which would typically be the main weapon and not as good at close range like shorter cut & thrust swords, not to mention more inconvenient to carry. Also some weaknesses of thrusts are emphasized in a fight with multiple opponents.

So rapier is really specialized for quite a specific situation and not that great in most scenarios, but it's definitely not true that it's "pretty useless against anything that isn't a rapier".

>>2651842
Foil is a flexible practice weapon with a blunt tip, duh.....

>>2651745
The piercing quality of the rapier doesn't surpass your average Oakeshott XV or later. If you're fighting unarmored even an early spatulated tip is more than sufficient, and not to mention the lack of tapering on the rapier can lead to overpenetration.
As far as parrying goes weight distribution is what matters, not overall weight. Having most of the weight at the hilt really pushes the "strong" of the blade farther back than your average arming or longsword, which can easily cost your life versus a cutting sword, as you will essentially have to allow the opponents blade a lot closer to yourself in order to attempt a parry. Not to mention that great, long lever with seldom sharpened edges is fantastic to grab onto and perform a Scwertnemen or simply occupy the weapon leaving you open to attack.

>>2651901
The reach advantage is not even that big in most cases. Longswords are usually a bit longer than rapiers, but the reach equals out more or less due to the body mechanics involved. A very crucial flaw of the rapier is the poor stopping power it has. Yes, a thrust can be almost instantly lethal, but in very select few zones of the body, where as with earlier period swords most hits that land will kill or incapacitate the opponent, even in the extremities.
I have a hypothesis the poor stopping power is one of the reasons the rapier grew in popularity as a civilian sword. While duels were a matter of honor they were rarely held to the death, because people obviously didn't want to die over simple disputes, spilled drinks and adultery. When you get stabbed the duel usually ends if it's led to first blood, or you can simply concede, then get easily patched up, granted the rapier didn't hit a vital organ, whereas taking a proper sword blow most of the time will leave you a cripple or dead.

>>2648229
zweihander

>>2651984
>Not to mention that great, long lever with seldom sharpened edges is fantastic to grab onto and perform a Scwertnemen or simply occupy the weapon leaving you open to attack.

Most rapier blades had properly sharpened edges. Grabbing a blade can be a good tactic but works on all kinds of swords.

>>>/k/

File: ph kampilan.jpg (16KB, 640x427px)

16KB, 640x427px

>>2651038
Is that the Indonesian or Filipino variety. seems rather short so probably Indonesian.

also, bumping with Kampilan

>>2651984
>The reach advantage is not even that big in most cases. Longswords are usually a bit longer than rapiers, but the reach equals out more or less due to the body mechanics involved. A very crucial flaw of the rapier is the poor stopping power it has. Yes, a thrust can be almost instantly lethal, but in very select few zones of the body, where as with earlier period swords most hits that land will kill or incapacitate the opponent, even in the extremities.
>I have a hypothesis the poor stopping power is one of the reasons the rapier grew in popularity as a civilian sword. While duels were a matter of honor they were rarely held to the death, because people obviously didn't want to die over simple disputes, spilled drinks and adultery. When you get stabbed the duel usually ends if it's led to first blood, or you can simply concede, then get easily patched up, granted the rapier didn't hit a vital organ, whereas taking a proper sword blow most of the time will leave you a cripple or dead.

A rapier is a very poor choice if the goal is to merely injure but not to kill the opponent. A thrust of a rapier, if it connects, is almost guaranteed to penetrate because the force is concentrated on such a small area (the point), whereas cuts often ended up being superficial because the force is spread on much larger area. Before modern medicine basically nothing could be done to stabwounds and they were very lethal especially in the long run whereas cutwounds were often much more treatable. Yes, the best cut ends the battle quicker than any thrust can - however on average it's not necessarily true that cut has better stopping power.

A sword designed specifically for "to the first blood" duels was the dueling sabre - a sword that couldn't thrust at all but could give superficial cuts.

I've always figured the katana to be one of the worst designed swords.

>one sided
>non pointed tip
>two handed

Compare that to a short sword, where you can hack both ways since it's double-sided, cut, and stab since it has a pointed tip. On top of that you have a free hand for a shield.

>>2652131
continued:

Now a theory that seems more plausible, in addition to the theory that rapier was the most effective sword in that context, is that killing with a thrust was perceived as more civilized than chopping the enemy to pieces. But a rapier as a specialized weapon for "to the first blood" duels is just a silly idea.

go back to /k/ the weapons board. Just because they don't want you there doesn't matter. Some of us would like to discuss politics on a politics board surely so why should you get the special treatment.


>>>/k/

File: rapier.png (142KB, 850x850px)

142KB, 850x850px

>>2652145
The Traditional Katana looks rather plain to be honest

The Rapier looks fancier

>>2652153
This is a "history & humanities" board - not a "history & humanities & no weapons" broad. Hundreds of years old weapons and martial arts are well within the scope of this forum.

File: IMG_5483.jpg (528KB, 1242x1891px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 1242x1891px

>>2652131
>>2652147
Nobody is saying it was designed for a first blood weapon. My hypothesis is that it's rise in popularity among civilians has to do with it's poor stopping power. You are completely underestimating renaissance medicine and overestimating the lethality of a thrust. Puncture wounds were nothing uncommon and suture and cauterization were common techniques. If you get stabbed once, even in most parts of the torso chances are you will live unless a vital organ was punctured, or you die of infection weeks later, where as a cut to an artery will kill you in minutes and incapacitate almost instantly. I'm not even going to mention blows to the front of the skull.
The notion that a weapon would be favored because it's more "civilized" is absolutely laugahble in any martial context. What are you even doing on this board, you have such a poor grasp on what life was in the past?

File: IMG_5484.jpg (274KB, 1242x1210px)

274KB, 1242x1210px

>>2652215

File: Shotel - Ethiopia.jpg (25KB, 640x399px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 640x399px

Personally I do not understand the purpose of shape of shotel, especially that as far as I know, the edge is one the inner side.

File: African executioner sword.jpg (43KB, 315x768px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 315x768px

African ceremonial swords takes not only the cake, but the entire table too.
That being said, they are likely post medieval.

>>2652235
Swords like those, the Thracian sica and Dacian falx are usually a product of cultures that wore little boddy armor, but also had shields. The orientation if the curve is good at getting behind or hooking shields. The forward curved tip delivers damage much like a military pick would, albiet with less weight behind it, but also keeping some chopping capability when the opportunity lends itself. Overall not a bad weapon, but not versatile or comparable to the average medieval sword.

Fun fact: Romans had to reinforce their helmets at one point because Thracians and Dacians would often bury the tip of the weapon in their heads straight through the helmet, thanks to the beak-like property.

>>2652215
>The notion that a weapon would be favored because it's more "civilized" is absolutely laugahble in any martial context.

If it's a laughable notion then how is the idea that people would deliberately opt for a weapon with less stopping power (in order to not kill their opponent) not similarly laughable? If we are talking about duels of honor, how is it irrelevant what is considered civilized? I can definitely see that people might be more reluctant to chop limbs or cut bellies open with internal organs flying about than they would be to simply poke a hole in the opponent.

>>2652145
Non pointed tip? where are you getting this? the kissaki is very sharp, and the katana is stiff which makes it quite a good thruster.

The Hokushin itto ryu taught that kendo began with the trust. The idea that katana were not used for thrusting is anachronistic.

I cant speak to a one sided blade, but the reason the katana was short, as opposed to a longer blade like nodachi or a old style tachi was so it could be worn as civilian wear and drawn very quickly. They can and were used one handed in many situations, though two hand is preferred for parrying, leverage and extra power behind cuts

>>2652290
>deliberately opt for a weapon with less stopping power
People back then, much like today, valued their lives and would rather not die over petty squabbles, how is that hard to wrap your gead around? To the death duels were rare, even illegal in some places, because people weren't ruthless psychopaths and recognized that killing (and dying for that matter) wasn't some glorious badass thing to do. Of course some aspects of duelling were romanticized and glorified, but even then people recognized that.

>>2652153
Fuck off.

>>2648387
Messer literally just means knife. They were calling it a knife, not a sword. There might have been reasons, but the name is nothing special.

>>2652326
Explains how the duels evolved to be mainly with guns huh?

fucking retard

>>2652215
>My hypothesis is that it's rise in popularity among civilians has to do with it's poor stopping power.
If you're going to argue that, you'd be going against what most rapier instructors had to say about the weapon. Their biggest argument for choosing the rapier over other kinds of sword is that it was the most efficient way to kill someone, since thrusts are often ore fatal than cuts. In fact, most of the Italian and Spanish schools of rapier fencing are specifically framed as "scientific" fighting styles that aim to teach the easiest way to kill a person on the basis of geometry, energy, would type, and other things tied to how fights worked.

The rapier was not a dainty weapon that only caused superficial wounds. The people using it were doing so because they thought it was the most effective way to kill someone quickly.

>>2652326
>>2652326
>how is that hard to wrap your gead around?
I can wrap my head around that perfectly well. I merely pointed out that you can't argue at the same time that the notion of what is civilized does not matter. Now if we are talking about defending from random assault, opting for a weapon with less stopping power is crazy, similarly "killing the opponent in a civilized way" wouldn't come into the equation. But if it's a duel of honor, with matched weapons then it's not just about brutal effectiveness.

>>2652380
In a closed vacuum of a rapier duel sure, it's fantastic and efficient. Try fencing someone with a longsword, though. Granted neither me, nor my colleagues are world class fencers, but we have experimented with rapier/longsword and 8 times out of 10 the longsword comes out on top in less than 3 tempos. Another 10% of the exchanges end in doubles which heavily favor the longsword.
Whether or not the rapier grew inpopularity due to it's poor stopping power is irrelevant - it's a poor weapon that lacks versatility outside of the sterile environment of a rapier duel.

>>2652409
Pepper spray and rape whistles are a poor choice for self defense, but a lot of people opt for those over other methods of self defense because of law, social pressure or simply ignorance.

>>2652427
OK, you may have a point there, but the same applies to why people would choose a thrusting sword over a cutting sword - social pressure (or innate psychology perhaps) deeming chopping the opponent into pieces a duel as brutal and barbaric.

>>2652419
>poor stopping power
You keep saying that without describing what you actually mean. Stopping power is an incredibly complicated subject, and pretty much no one agrees on most aspects of it. If you stab someone in the chest and puncture any of their vital organs (before modern medicine), chances are that person is going to die. They might not drop dead immediately, but death is sure as hell going to stop them.

Pointless bickering about stopping power and whether a rapier can deal with a longsword or not, in a fight where an easy death like that is a real possibility, someone is going to be aware of that, and much less likely to get within reach of a puncture.

>>2652439
See my post here: >>2652380. Rapier fencing treatises talk about why you use a rapier, and they don't say that it's because cutting is barbaric. They say that stabbing is the most efficient way to kill someone. It wasn't about being civilized, it was about using scientific principles to cause deadly wounds as efficiently as possible.

>>2652463
certainly any stab wound to the chest is a potentially lethal blow, but what were the actual results of documented duels with them?

I know that short sword duels often resulted in someone losing a lung, then their life. but I though I read somewhere that due tot he greater distance between combatants rapier duels tended to be less deadly.

>>2652419
So many factors in play there... Experience difference in general, experience with respective weapons, the length of the weapons, long feders are lighter and have better speed than a real longsword of the same length, do the rapierists have a dagger, a sturdy dagger with a substantial guard or a small dagger with just side-ring etc. etc.

FWIW I don't really have an opinion which is superior in a duel as both longsword and rapier have so much variation.

>>2652362
Because duelling with pistols is easier to rig and easier to survive?

>>2652439
Sure, I mean that might have some part. It's never a single reason and it's always hypothetical unless there are written records. I also think rapiers were more or less en vogue, signifying status, much like other swords were before The renaissance.

>>2651125
these were designed for horseback use, regular straight swords could get stuck into the opponent wereas these didn't

File: jpswords.jpg (369KB, 2562x1772px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 2562x1772px

>>2652295
>The idea that katana were not used for thrusting is anachronistic.
This.

As combat in Japan became more infantry focussed and armour more protective, using mail and plates, katana became pointier and straighter.