Why were curved swords used in Middle East so much? They did

>>3325339
Momentum gained at the curve makes it more powerful than straight sword of similar build. Especially when you use it from a horse.

>>3325339
>why dumb subhumans do dumb shit? the post

>>3325339
Well its not meant to be used on your own side.

>>3325339
>Why were curved swords used in Middle East so much?

Because many middle eastern nations were built by, or relied heavily upon nomadic steppe horsemen. The Turks (Seljuks, Ottomans, etc) and the Mongols all originally were societies of horsemen on the Eurasian steppe. In that arena, heavy armour was not nearly as common, and their style of warfare favoured fast, loose cavalry engagements, which in turn favoured lighter weapons (bows and swords) over lances. The optimum motion of attack for a sword-armed light cavalryman is always a slicing cut, never a thrust, thus their weapons evolved to support this to an extreme degree.

Then when these horsemen went conquering, or were hired as mercenaries, they took their style of warfare with them, which proved to be very successful, and so was continued and imitated.

The middle east bore the brunt of many such conquests, by the Mongols of several Khanates, including Timur, and wave upon wave of Turkic invasion, so this style of warfare and the weapons thus employed became ubiquitous.

Another area where you can witness this effect is in Russia and Eastern Europe, as the various hordes that passed by employed these weapons, giving them in turn to the Cossacks, and spreading them throughout Eastern Europe, which, along with the Turko-Byzantine (as the Byzantines took readily to curved swords, employing Turkic mercenaries with such weapons even before Manzikert and the loss of Anatolia) influence on the Balkans, and the Ottoman conquests, led to the adoption of sabres by the Serbians and Hungarians in the 14th-16th centuries, who in turn spread it throughout Europe with their employment as Hussars, and their cultural and political links to other Eastern European nations (Poland especially), so that by the turn of the 19th century, the sabre was the dominant cavalry sword in Europe, whereas two centuries earlier, it had been the schiavona or backsword, straight bladed, basket hilted descendants of the arming sword.

>>3325420
Saber being popular in Europe later on makes sense. I understand why curved swords were used, and the idea behind them.
I don't understand why they were used so heavily in Middle East when they used armor a lot. Wouldn't saber be totally useless against armor?

Why are curved swords better? Is it weight distribution? The angle of impact? More torque?

Don't tell me they are good for "slashing".

>>3325339
because when you're riding a horse/camel, a non curved sword is more likely to get stuck in whatever you're slashing

>>3325521
>dude, like, camel warriors throw giant scimitars at you and do +6 bleedng slash damage xD
>>>/v/

>>3325510
To be fair, the reason they are better basically just amounts to slashing.
The curve at the end gives the sword a larger total area despite having the same length as a broadsword. Meaning its more sword contact then a straight blade could achieve.

>>3325487
>I don't understand why they were used so heavily in Middle East when they used armor a lot. Wouldn't saber be totally useless against armor?

Sabres are not useless against armour any more than any other sword is. In a cavalry engagement, it is extremely risky to thrust at an opponant, especially if you are passing eachother with any considerable speed, as you are liable to grievously injure your arm. So all swords, when used on horseback, were predominantly slashing swords, straight bladed or otherwise. They were effective against armoured opponents by simply aiming your cuts between the pieces of armour. Very often this meant targeting the face and neck, the armpit, the inner arm, etc.

Couple this with the fact that middle easterners generally wore much less armour than their European counterparts (there is no ME equivalent to a Gothic full plate harness), and also the fact that ME warfare involved significant amounts of light cavalry, cavalry archers, and the like, who generally wore spare little armour, and you'll find that sabres are still very effective weapons.

Plus consider that the majority of an army, in the ME or in Europe, in the middle ages, is going to be comprised of lightly armoured peasants, who will be your primary target, and against whom your sword is extremely deadly.

Then further remember that as time went on, and gunpowder became more and more common and effective, ME soldiers (Mamluks, Ottomans, Persians, etc) transitioned, as in Europe, to wearing less and less armour, as it was a hindrance that simply wasn't effective against the bulk of an army's killing power, as such became gunpowder based. This meant the opponents to your sword themselves became less and less armoured, and even more vulnerable to your cuts, while cavalry still maintained a vital role on the battlefield into the 20th century.

>>3325510
>Why are curved swords better? Is it weight distribution? The angle of impact? More torque?

The curvature of the blade allows you to maintain a good cutting angle (as close to 90 degrees as possible) for a much longer time as you draw your edge across the opponent, leading to deeper and more effective slicing cuts.

See Matt Easton's video on the Tulwar for an explanation of how this can be especially deadly:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BoKUfaorJ0

You also then do generally have better, more tip heavy balance, important for momentum, giving more force to any cut.

Remember ultimately that the goal of an effective cut is generally not to cleave your opponent apart but rather to draw your edge along the surface of your opponent's body for as long as possible, slicing as deep as possible into their flesh and creating as large as possible a wound. The opposition to this is in straight bladed swords such as backswords or sciavonas, which opt for a cleaving cut (at least, from horseback), and while effective, are generally less effective, as they are more liable to damage the user's wrist or arm, are more liable to stick in an opponent if they bite into bone or armour, and ultimately deliver less devastating wounds. Hence why they were superseded by sabres.

>>3325339
Before the Turks took all over Islamic militaries, the Middle East actually used straight swords - the curved sword (Kilij, Saif, Tulwar, whatever you name it) was brought to the Islamic world via the Turks.

Why? It's simple in my opinion, it's the easiest and most deadly to use atop a horse, where it doesn't just hack through flesh like a straight sword, as its curvature and the way it's used gives it a slicing element atop its heavy swing.

They were used heavily through Eastern Europe as well.

>>3325420
Nailed it.

>>3325339
Why did europeans used straight swords so much? They did use a lot of armor, so i don't see how a straight sword was effective against armor.

File: Sword_of_Umar_ibn_al-Khittab-mohammad_adil_rais.jpg (20KB, 546x1200px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 546x1200px

Reminder that Arabs used straight swords until the Turkification of Islam

File: 1288074864398.jpg (79KB, 486x800px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 486x800px

>>3325790
>Before the Turks took all over Islamic militaries, the Middle East actually used straight swords - the curved sword (Kilij, Saif, Tulwar, whatever you name it) was brought to the Islamic world via the Turks.
This.

People need to keep in mind that during the crusades, crusaders and Muslims used pretty much the same kind of equipment.

File: Lutold_koenigsegg.jpg (2MB, 1304x2219px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1304x2219px

>>3326762
>i don't see how a straight sword was effective against armor
Straight swords can be thrust into gaps of the armour.

>>3325339
Europeans used a lot of curved swords in the early middle ages. Straight swords designed for thrusting became more prominent as time went on - they were better against armor and had to compete against an increasing trend towards polearms on the battlefield. People also gradually realized that thrusts are generally better than cuts; a thrust kills more easily, has more reach and is usually harder to defend against. It's more awkward to stab with a curved sword unless you're facing a shield (which became less common as time went on). Nevertheless, curved swords remained useful for cavalry for centuries, and massed guns made armor mostly useless eventually.

File: Augsburg_Cod.I.6.4º.2_(Codex_Wallerstein)_107v.jpg (481KB, 1228x819px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1228x819px

>>3326762
>>3326852
A straight sword is just fine against armour. All in how you use it.