What's the most adaptable, jack-of-all-trades sword in history,

Probably a short sword like a gladius. Stabbing is always better than cutting or hacking.

probably the sabre. can be used on horse or foot, and pretty much every culture with horses has used a variation of it.

File: IMG_1555.jpg (345KB, 829x1919px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 829x1919px

Scimitar

File: bee0a64dd03314cabfdcac64f0e2cec4.jpg (83KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x600px

>>3324697
>the most adaptable, jack-of-all-trades sword in history

>>3324774
> CURVED
> SWORDS

File: squire-1.jpg (21KB, 128x570px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 128x570px

>>3324761
>use it on foot
>get outmatched by longer, more advanced designs

>use it on horseback
>it's basically fucking useless

OP, a jack-of-all-trades sword will never be adequate in every given situation. If you improve its capability in one area, it'll be worse in an other.

A good jack-of-all-trades sword in the 11th century will be radically different from one in the 15th century, and also very different from a 18th century one. Needs changed, and that changed sword design.
If you want to create a sword that is just as good in the hands of a 15th century knight as it is in the hands of a Napoleonic infantry officer, you'll get a fucking lemon.

>>3324697
Probably a cut and thrust sabre with a shallow curve, and some from of complex hand protection that you find in a lot of the western 19th c. sabres.
It should be designed for the thrust while still having enough mass to parry heavier weapons and cut effectively.

File: type XVI.gif (10KB, 360x306px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 360x306px

>>3325301
That being said, I'd say if you want a sword that is basically useful in every era you'd want a sword in, it would have to be one-handed Oakeshott Type XVI. Powerful cutter, undeniably a lethal thruster too. Decent length, and good handling characteristics. The point is also adequate for things like half-swording.

Sure, it lacks a substantial guard, but if combined with a buckler or so, this issue is nullified. If you were transported into a time and place where you'd want a complex hilt, just get someone to attach one.

A lot of people here have suggested 18th/19th century style infantry sabres, but they've got some major disadvantages.
The complex hilt gets in the way in earlier times when things like gauntlets, shields, bucklers and so on were used. The lack two full edges reduces versatility and

The additional problem is that their cutting capacity (despite being curved) was limited because they weren't designed to deal with things like textile armour. In the Crimean war the British sabres for example were so flimsy they failed to deal with winter coats.

Also, thrusting is terribly overrated. Yes, a pure thrusting sword like a rapier is useful in a duel, however there are numerous problems with relying almost entirely on the thrust:

(To be continued, 1 / 2 )

File: side-sword.jpg (135KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1024x768px

>>3325409
(2 / 2)

1. Thrusting on horseback, while it can be done effectively, seems to not have been favoured by basically every culture that was competent on horseback. The fact that so many of the very last cavalry swords were dedicated thrusters has more to do with hubris and incompetence than anything else. We have accounts of cavalrymen who were deployed to the British Raj (i.e actually saw combat) for example who thought the whole idea was dumb as shit.

2. Thrusting is extremely risky. There are more than enough historical accounts of people getting completely run through and carrying on the fight. Sure, the guy you stabbed probably will die eventually, but for now, he's got nothing to lose and you'll have to extract your sword in time to receive his attack, which is easier said than done.
The rapier had a fatal flaw in a sense, that being that oftentimes both participants in a duel died.
A good cut to the hand, arms (or basically almost anywhere) is usually bound to impede the enemy's fighting capabilities, if not completely incapacitate him. Defending after delivering a cut is also generally easier.

3. Heavily dedicated thrusting swords were never favoured by anybody in group combat. When people used rapiers for duels, they used side-swords (essentially a shorter, wider rapier, pic related) on the battlefield. There are multiple reasons for this. Example 2 is one, an other one is that when defending against multiple opponents, cutting motions become very favourable.

File: EWflH3u.jpg (85KB, 900x625px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 900x625px

>>3325450
Now that I think of it, a side-sword is a decent contender too. The blade on this example is very similar to a type XVI arming sword, but with a ricasso. Also adaptable in the sense that you can remove unnecessary hilt elements.

>>3324774
OP here, this post is retarded, all you can do with it is slash

If they are armored, something between a side-sword and a rapier.

If not then a saber.

>>3325529
However they are superb cavalry weapons, extremely powerful cutters, and have a long history of use in which they were proven time and time again to be effective weapons.

Their flaws are that they basically require a shield or buckler when on foot (even if you add hand protection, as they aren't well suited to western style sabre techniques) and that they're useless against metal armour.
However, in most time periods, and in most places, this sort of sword would still be very useful. Perhaps not the best choice, but far from a bad one.

>>3325556
Just about all swords are useless against metal armour, that's precisely why things like stilettos existed

>>3324697
>against unarmored peasants
Falchion
>against lightly armored infantry
Warsword / Longsword
>in a duel
Smallsword
>against aliums
Lightsaber

File: mairbohrschwerter.jpg (150KB, 826x557px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 826x557px

>>3325548
Rapiers are worthless against armour. Not every thrusting sword is automatically a can opener.

>>3325564
Swords designed during the heyday of plate armour adapted to it.

>>3325594
>Swords designed during the heyday of plate armour adapted to it.

Eh not really, there are techniques like holding the blade and hitting them with the hilt but really knights primarily used polaxes and maces precisely because a sword is mostly useless against plate armor.

>>3324697
Curious that nobody said a Montante already...
They outrange all other swords and can still be used as a spear-like weapon in close quarters. They are useful both in and out of armor fighting against both armored and unarmored people. You can't fight on horseback but you don't really need to. It's designed for 1 against many and it also excels against one person.
It's like... perfect... except it's a bit big.

>>3325602

Lots of people have said longsword already, what are you talking about?

>>3325602
What if you took something like montante or zweihander and hit someone on his head. Wouldn't that fuck him up even if he wore later helmets?
Also, I can't believe that huge swords like that when swung or thrust with enough force couldn't at least dent 1 or 2 mm of steel armor of that age.

>>3325682

Somewhat, but a sword is not a metal bar, its a very think metal bar weighted towards the hilt. Most swords weighed between 1 and 5 lbs, not enough to be useful as impact weapons thru a metal helmet. But there is the "murderstroke" technique of gripping your sword by its blade and using the hilt as a crude hammer, which is much more effective but still not a patch on a real weapon such as a mace.

>>3325696
Kinda related question, do you know what was the thickest steel armour (part of armor) used during that period? I mean late medieval and onwards.
How thick were late cuirasses?

>>3325602
It's a sword that fills the role of a polearm. It isn't a sidearm. It's obviously not going to be usable in most civilian contexts
Aside from also being useless on horseback, you also have to consider that in many time periods you would not have wanted a two-handed weapon, as body armour was too expensive and generally lacked the necessary coverage to allow for the safe use of a two-hander. Projectiles would fuck you up good.

Falx
>See romannigger
>Give them the chop
Hard to hold that blade with no hand Marcus.

>>3325594
>Rapiers are worthless against armour

A very common meme for which I've never heard a justification. Sure they are not quite the ideal type of anti-armour sword as they are not quite as rigid as an estoc - but they are still rigid and pointy which is good for thrusting into the gaps of armour.

A real example of particularly shitty sword against armour would be some of those really broad bladed falchions.

File: TULWARS-ZEPP-JULY-2013-012.jpg (2MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x2304px

I think historically the closest thing to an attempt at a jack of all trades sword is the spadroon and they're pretty universally agreed to be terrible

>>3324761
You're just regurgitating memes you don't understand. That's an argument in favor of the rapier, not in favor of short swords or daggers.

>>3325301
>>3325409
Oakeshott XVa and XVIIIa are more versatile as they can be used either one handed or two handed.

File: rondel_dagger_no04_by_sandydolgok-d9t2zve.jpg (24KB, 467x350px)

24KB, 467x350px

>>3325564
Stilettos exist to penetrate through thick clothing, not metal armor. The military equivalent is the rondel, which is a much stiffer and stronger weapon with a triangle shape that's designed to be equal parts ice pick and prybar.

>>3325584
Smallswords only replaced rapiers because they're more practical. The fact that they're less effective doesn't matter, because if some dumbass showed up to a duel with a rapier, you'd just laugh and accuse him of compensating for his tiny penis and walk off.

File: 202518.jpg (88KB, 560x2720px)

88KB, 560x2720px

>>3325832
>A very common meme for which I've never heard a justification.
Not him but I would argue that a rapier is too lengthy and cumbersome while not being sturdy enough to be half-sworded properly like a late medieval longsword to be good for armoured combat, which is often very close and personal since the participants don't need to be as careful about their opponent's weapons.
It depends however what we mean by "rapier" here. Historically the term rapier has also been used for weapons such as side-swords, horseman's epees ("Reiterdegen"), etc., which were shorter and sturdier but also had complex hilts, in comparison with the civilian duelling rapiers of the late 16 - 17th century.
If by rapier we mean a weapon such as in my picture, then of course it can be used for armoured combat.

>>3325602
>You can't fight on horseback
That's what makes it not a jack-of-all-trades.

File: 1200px-Polished_kukri.jpg (201KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1200x675px

>>3324697
The Kukri
Curved sword, can be used everywhere but underwater.

>>3326064
Way too short to provide a decent defence or to be used on horseback.

>>3325601
>knights primarily used polaxes and maces
Pollaxes if they were deployed on foot maybe but maces were not nearly as common on the battlefields as swords if we go by historical findings and depictions. Also, maces were primarily cavalry side-arms.

>>3325832
>A very common meme for which I've never heard a justification.
Easy. A rapier doesn't have the leverage you need to pry plates apart. The blade is too long, the balance is too near the grip, it's used one-handed, and it's not rigid enough.

>>3326261
Neither can the gladius you fucking romaboo

>>3326490
he didn't mention the gladius you dingaling

>>3324697
Best sword on horseback is a sabre. Best sword against an armoured opponent is an estoc. Best sword against an armoured opponent is a rapier. Best sword against a man on horseback is a zweihander

Best sword for any random occasion is a longsword

>>3326541
*against an unarmoured opponent is rapier

the Katana ofc

I did @ 7 years of SCA sparing in the 70's. A 40" sword and a 24" shield pretty much outclassed every other at one on one. Spear wielders had a hard time getting by a shield, axes took too long to recover from the stroke. Same with two handed swords. Short swords were completely btfo. Maces did ok, but lacked the reach of a standard sword.
Yeah, it's just rattan, but they weighed 2 plus pounds and were used at full speed. Knee and below and hands were the only targets that were of limits. Helmet and gauntlets were the only required safety equipment.

>>3326567
off

>>3326567
>LARPing
>Relevant
No.

>>3325607
Montante and longsword aren't the same thing, a montante is typically viewed as a 2.5kg, 120cm blade length weapon, it's basically a bridge between a longsword and the big two-hander you see commonly.

>>3325718
OP said sword, the montante is clearly a sword, was used both in civilian and battlefield scenario. Somebody suggested that you needed a shield or a buckler, gauntlets to make there sword work. Obviously in a battle you'll need armor, that is no different than with any other swords, so the point is moot, in that case, no sword is good enough because what you need is a shield or armor, and it's out of the equation considering we aren't talking about these but swords.

>>3326920
>Obviously in a battle you'll need armor, that is no different than with any other swords, so the point is moot
Nope. The problem is that sufficient armour is not always available. In order to be effective in all time periods it has to be able to accommodate the protection of the time, which usually means armour that isn't sufficient without the addition of a shield.
That eliminates basically all dedicated two-handed weapons from the thread outright.

In addition, the Montante's way too large to be carried like a regular sword, which does mean it can't fulfill the role of a regular sword in most roles, specifically civilian. Sure, it was a supremely effective weapon for a bodyguard, but as a "carry" weapon? Hell no.
It's also way too large to be used in conjunction with a musket or rifle. You can only get away with it in a 18th/19th century perspective as an infantry officer. Admittedly it would be fucking awesome employed like that. (DON'T FUCK WITH ME AND MY MEN, FOR I HAVE A FUCKHUGE SWORD)
As a grunt or horseman, it wouldn't work out.

Overall a Montante just lacks the versatility specified in the OP.

>>3325450
>Heavily dedicated thrusting swords were never favoured by anybody in group combat.

The Romans disagreed.

>>3327044
>That eliminates basically all dedicated two-handed weapons from the thread outright.
A montante absolutely has the advantage over a rapier or smallsword. Your second point is why it's not useful in most situations. It would be like hauling a Barrett M82 around all day for self defense.

>>3327049
Romans employed plenty of spears at every time in their military history and an ever increasing number of auxiliaries with a wide range of armaments.

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.

Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.

Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:

(One-Handed Exotic Weapon)
1d12 Damage
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

>>3324697
My own thought process on that was to have a sword that I could use both with one hand or two hands, that had two cutting edges, powerfully built enough to do damage even against armored opponents, capable of cutting and piercing and of decent length.

So my answer would be a hand and a half sword, or bastard sword.

Mind you, there is just no ultimate sword just as there is no ultimate martial art. Each sword type was specifically designed to deal with the challenges of it's historical context.

>>3327049
The idea that the Gladius was only used for thrusting is a myth. We have references to them cutting arms and heads off in battle.

>>3327116
You dense cunt, look at what the OP specifies.
Jack of all trades.
As in, "if you can't use it on horseback, can't carry it conveniently, can't use it in one hand, and can't use it against high coverage plate armour (wrong sort of point, mordhaus are gonna be akward too), it probably doesn't fill the criteria"

File: 1492287817112.jpg (72KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 640x480px

>>3324697
Shark tooth human hair katana
You ain't got shit

>>3325450
Napoleon told his cavalry to thrust with the saber

>>3324697
Everyone ITT is wrong. The answer is the Chinese dadao

>>3325450
>3. Heavily dedicated thrusting swords were never favoured by anybody in group combat. When people used rapiers for duels, they used side-swords (essentially a shorter, wider rapier, pic related) on the battlefield. There are multiple reasons for this. Example 2 is one, an other one is that when defending against multiple opponents, cutting motions become very favourable.
Winged hussars used koncerz (something like 1 handed estoc) when dealing with armoured opponents.
And you are not limited to one weapon on battlefield.
>You'll have to extract your sword in time to receive his attack, which is easier said than done.
That's literally what armour is for.

>>3326388
actual rapiers were thiccer and heavier than most people imagine them today

>>3325128
This tbqh, spears are underrated as fuck for some reason nowdays.

>>3327273
ty for that lol.