Melee Weapons

File: 119-244-thickbox.jpg (28KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x600px

>>33266521
>Concealable in your pocket or on belt
>Quickly usable, no unsheathing distance
Its a simple and nice tool

File: 1478485904635.gif (1MB, 392x400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 392x400px

>>33266603
Plus I have never seen someone extend one for the first time and not smile like a maniac

File: Boar-spear-95boask-full-1.jpg (43KB, 920x520px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 920x520px

>Best melee weapon in history?
A piece of wood with a sharp pokey bit on the end, because it's cheap to produce and range is king.

I like battle rapiers though. Sad every depiction of a rapier is a 19th century French dress rapier.

>>33266645
Came to post this (spears).

>>33266521
Best for what situations? There is no "best" weapon without a purpose (and even then...).

File: chogun1.jpg (166KB, 736x981px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 736x981px

tomahawk niggas WW@?

>>33266521
Axes and spears, anon.
Reach is king, it's cheap and you can hunt with a spear.
Axe is just all around useful thing. Plus, it can fuck you up bad.

File: glock19.jpg (127KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1200x1200px

>>33266521
best melee weapon is glock 19

>>33269704
>grenade

>>33269704
>best striker-fired melee weapon

>>33266645
Any good spear for SHTF kit?

How about knife that can be spear too?

There is no best melee weapon similar to how there is no best gun. Each weapon is a tool for specific uses.

However, it is evident that spears were the most common melee weapons throughout history and for good reasons.

>good
- great reach
- very quick
- cheap and easy to make
- easy to train levies or conscripts with
- good for battle formations AND duels
- enemy gets too close? it can be used like a quarterstaff

>bad
- not so great in close quarters like a house or building
- shields and armor are great for countering spears because it allows the opponent to close distance

>>33270153
Also

>good
- thrusts are generally speaking more advantageous than cuts
- enemy manages to break the shaft near the blade? you still got a quarterstaff with a metal butt
- easy to see how it is used in groups
- somehow equally good in offense and defense
- shorter spears can be thrown at mid-range

>bad
- super awkward to walk around town with one, you have to be a soldier or guard for it to make sense to get one in such situations

>>33269704
Since when is a grenade a melee weapon?

>>33266645
Spears, much like rapiers only make sense in the context of lightly armored combat.
The sword is king of versatility. It can easily dominate in unarmored combat, considering you can pair it with a shield and it provides more than adequate options in fully armored combat (murder strikes, half swording).
In my opinion a warhammer is the next best thing as far as versatility goes, but it excells more in armored combat as opposed to the sword.

All that being said, there is no best weapon, it's all about context. I personaly favor the sword for the versatility it provides.

>>33270900
A hammer is overall the most effective weapon with the least amount of training needed. Plus it can be a tool to rebuild what was broken in war.

>>33266521
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGbE0L2zWbc

>>33271059
I can't say I agree with these sentiments. While the basic proper use of a sword can be condensed in two paragraphs, one covering strikes (cuts) and opposition lines and one covering "am Schwert" (essencially the bind) and grappling, hammers and maces (clubs, batons etc.) overlap in with the first paragraph. Efficient striking and covering opposition lines is absolutely essential with short weapons.
In contrast to that the proper use of a spear can be condensed in one sentence: put the pointy end in the enemy and step back when they advance. So no, I don't think blunt weapons have the lowest skill entry level.

As for usinng a warhammer for utility, you can do about as much with most of them as you can chop wood with a dedicated war axe.

>>33271095
that guy is dead.

>>33266603
also surprisingly deadly.

>>33269732
since they stopped blowing up.

>>33271121
that guy is a legend... and legends never die

>>33270800
>>33269732

dank meme, fags

File: hqdefault[1].jpg (34KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x360px

Entrenching tools are interesting as weapons. Tomahawks might be more effective for killing though.

>>33271116
>not using a Warhammer to perform basic carpentry

You do know where you are, right?

>>33271319
Fair point.
People here pole vault with moist nuggets, so who am I to say they can't use a warhammer to build a barn.

>>33271116
Hammers use is similarly condensed down to one sentence. Hit them hard with the flat part if they come at you, retreating as needed.

Of couse if it has spikes on the rear then you can use those but why bother when a good solid hammer blow will cave a man's chest in and break the bones in the arm and leg.

>>33269704
oi vey280

>>33272415
Hitting is simple, but as I mentioned closing opposition lines (the possible directions where attacks may come at you) is essential with one handed weapons and that takes more technical knowledge and practice. In addition you must also have flow to your strikes, as opposed to overwinding and overswinging in a broken up manner.
That being said, a hammer isn't that complicated indeed. I just think a spear is simpler and more straight forwards in it's use.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 12.26.27 PM.png (3MB, 1724x1290px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1724x1290px

plebs

>>33272565
>implying all war hammers are one handed weapons.
Anything over 10lbs is going to need two hands unless you are a monster of a man. That means longer haft. So at that point it becomes a quarterstaff with a 10+lb weight on one end. Get off your high HEMA horse.

>>33266645
>>33270900
I came to post Spear/polearm Stick with a sharp bit on top. Introduction of spears made shin guards mandatory.

Spears, pikes and polearms displaced swords on the battlefield until firearms arrived. Even today a staff or spear is easy to improvise.


>>33270153
>>33270265
Yes

>>33272582
Easy to turn farming implements into polearms. One guy hooks the opponent and stabbing begins.
Polearms users can defeat Sword and Shield guys one on one.

>>33272701
Obviously I was a generalizing, but that doesn't discount how retarded your comment is. When you strike with a long weapon you still have to close opposition lines and have flow for your follow-up, because the guy opposed to you could have just as long of a weapon.

>10lb weapon
>with a forward weight distribution

Just don't comment anymore, buddy, it's apparent all your knowledge of melee weaponry comes from Legend of Zelda.

>>33271173

Far better if you use a snooker ball.

File: bayo.jpg (61KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 250x250px

>>33269751
>How about knife that can be spear too?
Pretty sure they're called bayonets

Anyone like the Cold Steel baseball bats?

File: 5.5 hours in paint.jpg (132KB, 550x375px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 550x375px

The Katana is clearly the superior melee weapon

>>33273085
Had one of the mini ones for batoning my estwing hatchet through wood and it broke within a matter of weeks.

>>33269751
>>33272942
Or just tie a fucking knife to the end of a stick.
It's not that hard.

File: Polearms-Geneva.jpg (377KB, 1607x1039px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1607x1039px

>>33266521
It's already been said a lot but the spear or some variant, due to its sheer practicality, ease of use, and ease of construction, has been adopted by almost every army from history, often paired with a shield. Even after firearms took hold, the spear simply evolved into the bayonet. You can't underestimate the usefulness of a spear.

>>33273662
>Use two tools in a retarded way they are not meant to be used in.
>Be surprised when it breaks

That is not how2hatchet.
Only on 4chan or a nutnfancy video comment section could this level of retardation exist.

File: Gravhammer.png (1MB, 1851x627px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1851x627px

>>33266521

>>33273662
If you're going to split wood like that use a fucking wedge and a maul

If it's just small stuff, strike into the wood so it bites in and you can pick the wood up by holding the axe handle, and hit the stump you're resting the wood on until it breaks

Stop using tools in a retarded way then complain that it breaks the tool.

File: 1431036327678.jpg (231KB, 656x1024px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 656x1024px

>>33266521
Goedendag. Now git out.

File: some of my collection.jpg (276KB, 1000x766px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1000x766px

My Poleaxe would be my weapon of choice.

File: 15281155_10155444594138906_277118740_n.jpg (92KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 720x960px

>>33266521
>pic related
>>33266603
>>33266625
>>33271163
What company should I buy one from, since I can't carry a gun?

>>33270900
Yeah, no. Knights were well known for cutting down their lances to bring along on foot, because spears are better against armor than swords.

>In my opinion a warhammer is the next best thing as far as versatility goes
Short, slow, no hand protection. It existed purely for use by armored men who expect to fight armor men.

>>33272701
Skyrim isn't representative of real weapons.

>>33270900
>it provides more than adequate options in fully armored combat (murder strikes, half swording).
They're overrated. They work, but they're not more than adequate, just adequate. People mistakenly act like they're just as good as a mace or warhammer against armor

>>33271095

how he sheathed it was bretty cool though

>>33266603
Beautiful. Wish California didn't have to be so fucked.

>>33271174
What happened? How'd he die?

>>33275142
>Knights were well known for cutting down their lances to bring along on foot[...]
Source? If that was ever the case I'm fairly confident it was before the full suit of plate. Perhaps even before the common use of the brigandine.

As for the warhammer it's fair to say it's short, but I don't agree on it being slow. If you are an efficient fighter and you don't rely only on peripheral strength you will have no problem flowing from one strike or deflect into another, despite the forward weighted balance of the hammer. And hand protection? What weapon beside the sword (commonly) offers hand protection? Crossguards in the first place are needed on a sword more than any other weapon MOSTLY (I don't want this to be taken out of context, hence why I stress on mostly) because of binds and am Schwert plays, hence why early Carolingian swords have diminutive, barely existent crossguards, as it is speculated binding wasn't common practice among their users.

That being said, now that I reconsider I think maybe an axe would be the more versatile option after a sword. Something with a crow's beak on the back and a blade that is on the smaller and thicker side.

>>33275220
Obviously they're not as good as a warhammer vs. armor, but that was the whole point of my post. Each is better in their respective niche, but they can just as comfortably fit in the other niche.

Context is king in any speculative talks, though. For the sake of the argument I base my opinions on single combat either in, or without armor and availability of shields/bucklers, therefore I concentrate on single handed weapons.

>>33275762
Shit, I'm sorry for the autistic length of this post. I don't get out much lately.

>>33275762
https://books.google.com/books?id=GYSqCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=agincourt+cut+down+lances&source=bl&ots=O_fLe_Fbs6&sig=Gn6VIp99-8xnjbfo984vzXLnrAk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwji98zK78_SAhWo6IMKHWXrAqMQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=agincourt%20cut%20down%20lances&f=false

>but I don't agree on it being slow
It's shorter than many weapons of the same mass and has all of the weight in the head. Skill is irrelevant, it will be slower to react than a sword or spear.

>Crossguards in the first place are needed on a sword more than any other weapon MOSTLY
Because the hand is the most vulnerable part of a combatant, which is why virtually every sword-using culture had guards on some sort on them.

Polearms could very well have rondels on them, and there's far, far less of a chance of it being used in an unarmored self defense setting than a sword. That also goes for maces and a lot of later fighting axes.

>>33269704
It uses the Explosives skill for damage calculation so it doesn't fit as melee.

>>33273085
Never owned one but owned some sticks made of similar, but still inferior, material and they last basically forever so their bats might be good enough. The biggest fear I have with baseball bats is justly the fact that shit might break.

>>33274217
>>33274280
I would usually agree, but Cold Steel itself says that those bats are nigh indestructible so there is that.

>>33275762
also
>If that was ever the case I'm fairly confident it was before the full suit of plate. Perhaps even before the common use of the brigandine.
The swiss switch from the halberd to pike was literally a direct result of lombard men at arms dismounting and coming at them with lances in an ad hock pike block.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arbedo
1422 is well into the era of plate, anon.

>>33275958
They also say their gosse messer is a grosse messer and not and edged crowbar. They lie.

File: trench mace.jpg (143KB, 2800x2144px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 2800x2144px

>>33271289
I've read parts of Great War memoirs that state that soldiers would invariably prefer a shovel or some sort of club over their bayonets for cqc in the trenches.

>>33274682
How can one possess so many Albions?

File: 89f97ea.jpg (20KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x500px

only thing you'll ever need

>>33275909
The weight and balance of a weapon like the hammer or axe do not limit your reaction speed. Nor is the weight enough to significantly impair the speed of a person in fighting condition. You might fatigue faster because of the weight and balance, but in no way will your strikes be slower. Skill comes in play when you account for the fatigue and conservation of energy.


>the hand is the most vulnerable part of a combatant
AND that is because with a sword you have the thing called "the bind", where the hand is an easy target. In addition to that the quillions provide leverage and control in binds.
Anyway, we're on the same page here I believe.

>[...]dismounting and coming at them with lances in an ad hock pike block.

This is what I meant by context. In organized group combat long weapons are easily superior to most other options, but that doesn't translate autimatically into single combat. 10 spears pointed at 10 men are 10 times more likely to find a gap to go in, than 1 man with 1 spear versus someone whose full attention is dedicated to avoiding that spear.

>>33276139
>AND that is because with a sword you have the thing called "the bind", where the hand is an easy target.
It's the most vulnerable part of your body because IT'S THE CLOSEST PART OF YOU TO THE FUCKING ENEMY.

>BUT MUH BIND
Yes, all people using swords were prone the bind like long sword users. Everything from the the gladius to the kilij was used like the one weapon you are familiar with.

>The weight and balance of a weapon like the hammer or axe do not limit your reaction speed. Nor is the weight enough to significantly impair the speed of a person in fighting condition.
Having your center of mass farther fron the point where you grip an object will limit how quickly you can redirect that object. This is simple physics.

They're a specialized weapon for a specialized task.

Here, have easton explain it to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBBC4MX5Nxg

>>33272701
Do you also think zweihanders weigh 50 lbs? kek

Can anybody tell me the difference between a naginata/Halbert/pike/other spear-like weapons

>>33276748
More to the point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtYKkwpx1gw&t=0s

Maces are bad for unarmored use. So are hammers.

>>33276881
You are asking about a hundred different questions there. Pick a few specific things.

>>33276909
How about the difference between Halbertdand pike?

>>33276927
One is a spear made longer. Might be 10ft, might be well over 20.

The other is a spear-sized axe with a spearhead that routinely has a spike on the back.

>>33272789

I feel like all of what you said, is what you learned from a child's book. You're a retard who doesn't know shit.

>>33270341
Did the six fingered man kill your father anon?

File: 3a5bec66-145d-4db5-a2d4-fd9e64652936.jpg (49KB, 650x347px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 650x347px

>>33266521

Knife fired out of a rifle.

>>33271163
really? got nailed with an expandable baton in the arm after dumbly backing into an eskrima demonstration during eskrima class and got a very nasty bruise but no broken bone. A wooden riot bat would have EASILY broken the bone, the expandable baton just was too short and light to impart much power.

>>33269751
sog spirit

>>33266645
>>33269700
>>33272582
>>33273836
Polearms are weapons for use in the press, and as such are not ideal once combat breaks
down into the melee. The best melee weapons depend on where and who you fight, but are light weight and handy in order to attack in any direction, and take opponents out of the fight as opposed to just holding them at bay

Although, I am tempted to say armour instead..

>>33278792
You're retarded.

>>33278810
more detail?

File: 1488679675663.jpg (238KB, 800x522px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 800x522px

>>33266521
the baseball bat

>>33278820
>Polearms are weapons for use in the press
You don't know what the press is, clearly.

>but are light weight and handy in order to attack in any direction, and take opponents out of the fight as opposed to just holding them at bay
Because a 5-7ft poleaxe isn't handy, and it won't take an opponent out of the fight. Which is why it wasn't a knightly weapon, happily used in duels. In fact, to be poleaxed isn't a proverb referring to that weapons ability to drive you straight into the ground with a blow.

Charles the bold didn't die to a halberd splitting his skull carried by a man fighting him outside of formation.

Spears aren't deadly in single combat, and certainly aren't absurdly fast weapons, specifically due to their speed and ability to dictate the fight. Nor where polearms-all of them-renowned for their stopping power.
No, all polearms were apparently pikes, and used like pikes, all the time. Period fencing masters saying that the pole was the ideal weapon were wrong.
Oh, and the primarily wooden object that is held in both hands is, of course, going to be slow and hard to maneuver to face different directions, because leverage isn't real.


You're retarded.

>>33274682
Living the arming sword.

Does it count as melee when you run someone over with a car?

>>33278858
I'm not saying they're useless. And it should come as no surprise that they were often used in melee. Most battles were effectively decided outside melee as most of the work is done when the forces still have some coherence in their position and command, so optimising choice of weapon for melee doesn't make sense. Then you fight with what you have.

In a melee there is a very good chance of winding up isolated against multiple opponents at once, so a weapon optimised for sweeping a broad and deep area is better. I should really have said 'every' rather than 'any direction' in the original post, but I stand by it. And a duel is very different to a melee

>>33279024
>In a melee there is a very good chance of winding up isolated against multiple opponents at once, so a weapon optimised for sweeping a broad and deep area is better.
You. Are. Retarded.

First, no. There isn't a good chance of that, because battles did not devolve into a Hollywood cluster. Lines don't work that way. They never worked that way, ever. Fucking unformed MOBS don't even work that way.

Second, if you are surrounded against multiple opponents, you die. That's it.

Third, polearms, spears especially, are going to completely outperform other weapons in that situation, because they can shift targets faster and have the reach to keep opponents back.


Fourth, the ONLY weapon EVER recommended for use against multiple opponents was the zweihander, and only for the purpose of guarding a pike blocks colors. If it had to to be used, you'd lost and were trying to avoid total disaster. Even then, it was specifically noted for being useful in keeping back opponents in front of you. Get surrounded and you still fucking die.

>>33279058
>Most battles were effectively decided outside melee
>when the forces still have some coherence in their position and command

To me the question is 'which weapon keeps you alive until reinforcements arrive and bail you out?'. An out and out melee is a shit situation to be in.

>>33279100
>An out and out melee is a shit situation to be in.
They also didn't fucking occur. If you're in that sort of situation, you're in a rout, and are already dead.

Everything you've said is retarded and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject. Consider reading a book.

>>33279125
>OP: What's the best melee weapon?
>Melees didn't occur

And the most common place for a melee was on the deck of a ship. Where polearms are used far more by the defending side, trying to hold off the attackers, while the attackers use a greater proportion of swords, sabres and cutlasses, since they will be briefly isolated when they board.
So why don't you read a book?

>>33276879
You ever swung an 8lb sledge with one hand? If you say yes, you are a lying faggot.

>>33273701
Seems flimsy, any "socket" handgaurd knives?

>>33269751
>How about knife that can be spear too?
Why would you want that?

>use knife to carve spear
>now you have knife and spear
>spear breaks
>still have knife

>use knife as spear
>spear breaks
>have no knife or spear

>>33278792
>and as such are not ideal once combat breaks

You clearly don't know as much about melee fighting as you think you do.
A polearm is always the superior choice when going against an opponent.
They either have a polearm themselves and you're equal or they have something else and you're the one with an advantage.

It's a rifle vs carbine situation.

>>33279647
Don't bother. HE thinks close combat routine broke into Hollywood style bullshit with no formation or coherent lines.

>>33266603
>10/10 reasonability
>7/10 badassery
>3/10 effectiveness

File: light_rapier_45__2__by_danelli_armouries-d6wmgiz.jpg (146KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1024x768px

>>33266645

>>33275622
He was going to an island with a girl on kayaks and his tipped over and he drowned.

>>33266521
>Effectiveness
>Reasonability
These are both situational. With room to maneuver, spears/polearms are, without doubt, the most effective melee weapons in history. For situations outside of open combat in which you would be going about daily life and/or in a more urban setting but still expected to carry a weapon, rapiers and small swords were brilliant. For the modern world, it's whatever you can hide in your pants.
I've always been partial to the gladius & scutum combo for general badassery.

>>33273085
>Anyone like the Cold Steel baseball bats?
My brother has one. It is a tough son of a bitch, but it's heavy. I prefer an aluminum bat it's faster and easier to swing.

File: 6JtGTIA.jpg (18KB, 367x500px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 367x500px

>>33266521
*teleports behind you*
Psh, nothing personal kid.

File: shpagin.jpg (97KB, 639x367px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 639x367px

>>33279809
>teleports behind the teleporter
>Ppsh... nothin personnel kid...

Bought this yesterday for $11.50

Not saying it's the best melee weapon in history, but this is the only thread about melee weapons.

Sorry about the camera quality, lens took a hit.

File: 20170312_164646.jpg (281KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1920x1080px

>>33280794
Forgot pic like the retard I am.

File: italian-bastard-sword.jpg (72KB, 326x1189px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 326x1189px

>>33266645
>>33278792
a quarterstaff is better

>>33280906
How is a quarterstaff better than a spear exactly...? A spear is (can be) a quarterstaff with something to actually reliably injure and kill people with.

File: 1463959299102.jpg (36KB, 604x402px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 604x402px

>>33266645
>A piece of wood with a sharp pokey bit on the end, because it's cheap to produce and range is king.
You're on the right track.

>>33266645
>I like battle rapiers though. Sad every depiction of a rapier is a 19th century French dress rapier.
Wtf is a "battle rapier?" Rapiers were civilian dueling swords, they weren't usual on a battlefield (though it's true in those days soldiers equipped themselves so you could see just about anything as a one-off.)

>>33270900
>Spears, much like rapiers only make sense in the context of lightly armored combat.
No no no. Spears, like rapiers, have thrusting points which are exactly what you want against armor. When armor got very heavy in the late middle ages, spears got a bit longer but didn't have to change very significantly to cope. Swords, on the other hand, had to go from the single-handed sort of mostly-slashing weapons they had been in Europe for millenia into specialized thrusting weapons in order to cope (look up half-swording.)

>>33270900
>The sword is king of versatility. It can easily dominate in unarmored combat, considering you can pair it with a shield and it provides more than adequate options in fully armored combat (murder strikes, half swording).
No no no. The sword is typically a backup weapon on the battlefield (the exception being those late-period half-sworders and their swords are very different from what went before) - it's something a warrior or worth pulls out when his spear is lost or the distance is simply too short. It's also something he wears in daily life so when people see him they know he's a man of worth who can afford such a thing. Their use on the battlefield was limited at best.

>>33270900
>In my opinion a warhammer is the next best thing as far as versatility
How is that versatile? It only makes sense against plate.

Here's a versatile weapon, so light you can carry dozens, good range, good power. But there's no one best weapon. Make a good kit instead.

File: 1470373366847.jpg (62KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 300x300px

>>33281221
>Here's a versatile weapon, so light you can carry dozens, good range, good power.
woops wrong pic, here is a very light versatile weapon.

You really got to think more of the kit than the weapon alone though. Ok you like a sword? Which sword? What type of armor to go with it? Shield? Primary weapon, auxiliary stuff? You have to think in terms of how much does that entire kit weigh and what opportunities does it open up on the battlefield for you, not just 'what weapon is more badass.'

File: 500px-Patton_Sword.png (51KB, 500x196px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x196px

>literally the perfect sword
>probably never killed anyone

Shame.

File: burnman.png (172KB, 278x334px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 278x334px

>>33281325
ZION ZION THE WHITE LEGS THE MOJAVE COURIER GENTILES GOD JESUS THE DEAD HORSES THE LORD

File: Big-Boss-Salute-.jpg (36KB, 720x408px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 720x408px

>>33279717
Yet he'll always live in our hearts.

>>33281288
it's literally only good for use as a mini lance on horseback, nothing else

>>33278501
A knifle

>>33281288
Who suggested that it would be the "perfect sword" exactly? It's an extremely specialized sword in an era where they where irrelevant since 30 years or so.

>>33281221
The sword is versatile because everybody have a need for it, be them civilians, standing guards, archers, infantrymen, it's out of place for no one who wants a decent useful weapon. It can work in every situation (given it's not a specialized sword that is) with a decent chance of success, it's not too heavy or cumbersome. You can bring a sword in every scenario and be ok with it, which isn't true of a pike or a bow for instance. That's why it's a versatile weapon.

There is more to the world of swordsmanship and fencing in general than "the battlefield".

Next to that, the sling would be completely useless to walk the street for instance.

File: 1462122841953.jpg (137KB, 532x800px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 532x800px

>>33281772
>The sword is versatile because everybody have a need for it, be them civilians, standing guards, archers, infantrymen, it's out of place for no one who wants a decent useful weapon.
It's versatile because it's easy to carry around with you, in other words?

>>33281772
>It can work in every situation (given it's not a specialized sword that is) with a decent chance of success
Yeah, not really. Against armor, you need very specialized swords or (preferably) other weapons entirely.
They are very nice for slicing up unarmored peasants though.
<_<This isn't late period let alone high period armor, and it's still quite proof against swords.

>>33281772
>You can bring a sword in every scenario and be ok with it, which isn't true of a pike or a bow for instance
Bringing a sword (or a pike!) alone to attack a bowman sounds unrealistically stupid, actually. Even for stupid people.

>>33281772
>Next to that, the sling would be completely useless to walk the street for instance.
The sling is far from useless walking down the street. It's quite effective at pistol ranges - I suppose you think pistols are useless on the street as well?

>>33269704
not g29? pleb.

>>33281931
>It's versatile because it's easy to carry around with you, in other words?
It's part of the thing, whatever you use the sword will be the longest, most advantageous weapon you can get in supplement. Archers had swords, infantrymen had swords, town's guards had swords, whatever you do or expect, you can always bring a sword which isn't true of a larger weapon like a long polearm or a bow for instance. If your business involved melee weapons, a sword at your hip never hurt, but you would probably consider a pike twice.
A type XV would be quite good as a jack of all trades for instance and still decent against armored people, and that isn't really a specialized sword.

Of course it's never about "choosing between", the thing with swords is that you typically never choose between a sword and something else, it can always be a sword plus something else. They supplement basically any sort of other weapons well or decently at least.

I was assuming the sling in an era without common firearms an even then... If you can have a pistol and you take a sling it's quite a strange choice in my opinion. And I'd say that if you were to walk around shady parts of a medieval/renaissance city, a sword is a much safer bet than a sling (but then you can always have both...). A weapon you can't use at close range seems a fairly gambling choice to pick to defend yourself in a street I would say.

File: 1473331488375.png (696KB, 811x438px) Image search: [Google]

696KB, 811x438px

>>33282089
>Archers had swords, infantrymen had swords, town's guards had swords, whatever you do or expect, you can always bring a sword
Well, again, very late period after millennia of swords being made there were so many of them... in earlier times they were very expensive things that only the richest could carry however.

But the point about them being easy, convenient to carry, that's very good. It's probably their best feature. And it just seems odd to me that would get translated into 'best weapon.' I mean my easiest to carry firearm is a .380, most people here would say it's pretty weak and far from the best firearm all-around though.

>>33282089
>A type XV would be quite good as a jack of all trades for instance and still decent against armored people, and that isn't really a specialized sword.
Well that's a 14th century sword, it's a good pick for what we're talking about but I still think you're overestimating its armor-piercing capabilities considerably. You simply cannot cut chain mail, and bursting it with a thrust isn't nearly so easy as it sounds. You would be reduced for the most part to slashing exposed extremities and looking forward to a long fight before one of you finally bled to unconsciousness from multiple minor wounds.

On the other hand a good war axe could actually chop right through the same armor.

No, but you're right, I'm talking battlefield weapons, not many people would walk to the store carrying a battleaxe. I thought this was the melee weapons thread though, in which case battlefield performance seems pertinent.

>>33282089
>Of course it's never about "choosing between", the thing with swords is that you typically never choose between a sword and something else, it can always be a sword plus something else. They supplement basically any sort of other weapons well or decently at least.
I believe that was my point lol. A sword is part of a kit and should be thought of in context.

File: 1472622585914.jpg (3MB, 1695x2336px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1695x2336px

>>33282089
>And I'd say that if you were to walk around shady parts of a medieval/renaissance city, a sword is a much safer bet than a sling (but then you can always have both...)
Well you couldn't always have both. Most places and times, most people were not allowed to carry swords.

But you're right that it's not all either or, and it's good to have backups. How many slings is this fellow carrying? You reckon he would get stopped by a metal detector?

>>33266521
>Best melee weapon in history
Not even the best melee weapon of it's era.

>>33282208
>And it just seems odd to me that would get translated into 'best weapon.'
Oh it certainly doesn't make them the "best weapon", just one of the most if not the most versatile melee weapons. I was purely talking about versatility. It's not about being the best but being adequate enough at everything. Is a type XV the best, nope, but you can make it work even against someone with a suit of mail. Then again battlefield is pertinent but it's not the be all end all of combat scenarii.

Of course "swords" aren't the best weapon, but that's because there's no such thing as a "best weapon". Also I think that now, you're the one overestimating the power of a war axe, chopping through a suit of mail seems very highly unlikely, though breaking some links yeah sure.

I just think that we aren't really thinking along the same lines and that's why there is some sort of disagreement, but that's just internet for you.

>>33282249
A metal detector, in his days...? That's probably a picture of a balearic slinger of the 5th century or so, don't know how many metal detectors there were back then even with crazy aliens and shit dumping hot technology here and there.

File: 1485124389314.jpg (11KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x400px

>>33282368
>>33282368
>Oh it certainly doesn't make them the "best weapon"
OK then it sounds like we mostly agree.

>>33282368
>Also I think that now, you're the one overestimating the power of a war axe, chopping through a suit of mail seems very highly unlikely, though breaking some links yeah sure.
They definitely chopped through maille. This is why they were used. The balance is so far out front you can't fence with them at all, but this gives you a LOT more power, and the blades are made to ensure that even if you don't hit at the perfect angle you still focus all that force on just a few rings. If you're fighting unarmored men this thing is a huge waste of effort, it's heavy and slow, the only reason you bring this to a battlefield is precisely to chop through armor.

>>33282368
>A metal detector, in his days...?
Well in his days it would have been a visual inspection, but hey no sword there too. And in modern times, he would be even less likely to be 'detected' as armed in any fashion. There are at least 4 and probably 5 slings carried in open view in that portrait btw.

>>33274406

Look at that fucking weeb with his fucking shoulderpads I hope the militiaman removes him.

>>33274682
Dat gladius tho. Where did you acquire?

>>33274682

i'm mirin

>>33279651
FFS really?
I keep saying melees were rare, it wasn't worth arming on the basis of how good weapons were in a muddled, confused fight. I AGREE with you, spears are generally better hand-to hand weapons, BECAUSE MELEES ARE RARE.
But, in the one context that they did often happen, boarding opposing vessels at sea, where there is a lot of damage around, where movement is restricted, and where reinforcements arrive relatively piecemeal, we suddenly see swords actually being used as primary weapons.
Learn to read.

File: 16836033_1875175109365929_2843627386195608205_o.jpg (337KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 2048x1152px

>>33281221
>>33281258
>>33281931
>>33282497
>>33282497
There were plenty of autistic armchair generals in this thread, but you're just breaking the meter here. You sound like exactly like someone who has never actually swung a weapon and thinks large scale battles are indicative of the actual merit of a weapon.
You probably also believe the engrish rongbow, folded over 9000 times, and is vastly superior to any other weapon on earth can consistently and efficiently penetrate plate armor.

>thread about melee weapons
>post slingshot
HOLY FUCKING SHIT, JUST KILL YOURSELF

>>33283743
Also forgot to mention that pic is related. It's what happens when people with no physical culture and martial knowledge attempt to play knights.

File: 000 (7).jpg (170KB, 2074x1555px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 2074x1555px

>>33266521

this right here desu

File: 1459434604147.jpg (614KB, 1000x707px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 1000x707px

>>33283743
You have to consider the setting, and regardless of setting, you have to consider how much the whole kit weighs and how well it all works together. Using a sling to supplement melee weapons works very well. But we were talking about spears.

So what's the typical kit for a spearman, anytime from the earliest bronze age all the way up well into medieval times? The spear is the main offensive weapon, and the shield is the main defensive weapon. You carry some sort of ranged weapon, typically slings or javelins. You carry some sort of backup weapon, a club or axe or (usually short) sword. You're equipped for combat at all ranges, you have a good defense as well as a good offense, and the whole kit is light enough you can still move around.

Want to talk about a different setting? Sure but don't yell at me over it. Think that within that setting you have a better kit? Tell us what and why.

>>33282617
Albion. $800. Not even joking.

>>33283765
>attempt to play knights.
Or rather priests in this case...

File: autismspeaks3_1459167551722_1114515_ver1.0_640_360.jpg (63KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x360px

>>33283965

File: 2hya0j5.jpg (7KB, 360x203px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 360x203px

I rest my case..

File: volgin bullet.jpg (46KB, 500x279px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x279px

but of course!

File: tarley.jpg (53KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x338px

>>33284678

is that...dragonglass?

>>33281221
>they weren't usual on a battlefield (though it's true in those days soldiers equipped themselves so you could see just about anything as a one-off.)
The caroleans disagree.

>>33281931
>This isn't late period let alone high period armor, and it's still quite proof against swords.
Unless you target the limbs. A solution that was applicable to most armored men in history.

>I suppose you think pistols are useless on the street as well?
Holy shit you're retarded. I can pull my pistol and be firing in a second and a half. The same is not true of a sling. Even if you DO manage that, a body shot with a sling at that range isn't likely to kill or even disable, and one shot is all you fucking get.

>>33282249
>Most places and times, most people were not allowed to carry swords.
Which is why fucking everyone in the medieval era had a large knife in addition to their eating knife. Walking around with a rondel dagger or saex would be seen as entirely normal.

>>33282497
>Well in his days it would have been a visual inspection, but hey no sword there too.
You are continuing to reveal that you know nothing about the time period. In most places, you carried a knife up to forearm length, essentially for the sole purpose of fighting.

In some, IE london, commoners fencing with sword and buckler in the street was exceptionally common as sport.

>>33283965
>You carry some sort of ranged weapon, typically slings or javelins.
Please, provide evidence for all spear men doing so. Hoplites didn't. Sumerians didn't. Triarii didn't. Medieval soldiery generally didn't. Skutatoi did or didn't depending on the year.

>>33280637
>Ppsh

Underrated post.

File: machete_.jpg (126KB, 1067x749px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1067x749px

no one has posted machete
>fast
>not for weaklings
>cuts flesh, bones and crops alike
>good for dem forearms

I once cut a pig's head with a machete, and it was surprisingly easy
t.mexican

File: Wooden Swords.jpg (33KB, 378x221px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 378x221px

In crete people used to make wooden swords. Not batons or sticks that looked like swords, they were sharpened and everything. How sharp can a cutting edge on something made of wood be? It would blunt easily against armour imagine.

>>33285429
Would blunt against pretty much anything I'd imagine. You'd think they would make them for stabbing. What's with the curve?

File: spear.jpg (29KB, 1216x577px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1216x577px

A spear is the most effective melee weapon there is, one on one and in large formation.

spears need more love.

File: 5883020434.jpg (57KB, 1144x760px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1144x760px

>>33266521
Unironically the Katana, one of the most vogue weapons in the history of weapons. At around 1590 the long evolution of the weapon lead it to such a competent design, along with "meta" heavy training system called itto-ryu, it replaced the spear in duels

File: rapier.jpg (45KB, 338x450px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 338x450px

In terms of beauty, the rapier stands out from the rest.

just look at that hilt, fancy and graceful.

>>33285505
Accounts of their use say they cut people up pretty well, kind of like a macahuitl. Its called a "Swordstaff" and its from Crete, i don't know why its curved all the ones i can find pictures of are pretty curved though, its probably just because most of the Ottoman swords were that shape so they copied it. Its meant to be basically a sword for people with no access to metal.

>>33285564

it's useful for cutting down peasants,maybe.

Too short and you can't use it to halfsword in order to deliver more precise cuts. not good against armored opponents

Also, a spearman will beat a swordsman in a duel, most of the time.

File: Kampilan sword.jpg (64KB, 530x300px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 530x300px

The Filipino Kampilan looks pretty cool. the hilt is pretty cool, apparently based on the Filipino dragon, the Bakunawa.

File: kampilan pommel.jpg (283KB, 916x1072px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 916x1072px

Bakunawa hilts

File: 1471124752934.jpg (53KB, 472x650px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 472x650px

>>33285061
>Holy shit you're retarded. I can pull my pistol and be firing in a second and a half. The same is not true of a sling.
Actually that's reasonable with a sling if you practice. You don't really do any whirring wind up, it's a single clean swing, two at most, if you're the kind that wastes time.

>>33285061
>You are continuing to reveal that you know nothing about the time period. In most places, you carried a knife up to forearm length, essentially for the sole purpose of fighting.
>
>In some, IE london, commoners fencing with sword and buckler in the street was exceptionally common as sport.
Late period independent towns are hardly most places, and England was particularly lenient by continental standards.

>>33285105
>Please, provide evidence for all spear men doing so. Hoplites didn't. Sumerians didn't. Triarii didn't. Medieval soldiery generally didn't. Skutatoi did or didn't depending on the year.

Not ALL Spearmen, sheesh, but it was typical. I can't be arsed to find the quote but there's at least one classical writer who mentions explicitly that soldiers typically did carry some sort of ranged weapons even when it was not their specialty, and the sling was particularly popular at his time for this due to its light weight and easy stowability. Hoplites did at least on occasion carry javelins. And Roman republican era infantry, including your Triarii, definitely carried both light and heavy javelins as part of their normal kit.

>>33284494
k...k....Kriegsverbrechen!

>>33285650
>and you can't use it to halfsword in order to deliver more precise cuts
You don't use halfswording to make cuts.

>>33286793
I mean pierce sorry

>>33280637
"Ppsh. Nothin personal comrade"

>>33286535
You're thinking of a single roman writer suggesting that everyone carry slings.

You'll note the absolute absence of even a SINGLE record of roman infantry pulling out slings in combat, because nobody actually listened.

>Actually that's reasonable with a sling if you practice.
Bullshit. Show us all a slinger pulling a sling, loading it, and loosing accuratley in the time it takes to draw and fire a pistol.

>BUT MUH ENGLAND
And EVERYONE else, everywhere, had long knives. Homeless people would carry fucking knives.

>Hoplites did at least on occasion carry javelins.
Only in the archaic era.

>your Triarii, definitely carried both light and heavy javelins as part of their normal kit.
They explicitly did not, being armed initially as hoplites, and later with typical scutum, but still carrying the hasta and expected to fight solely as a phalanx.

You cannot practically carry two pilum and a hasta at the same time.

>>33279672
I've been on the receiving end of one, trust me it's 9/10 effective.

>>33285429
I would assume that they at least knew that fire can be used to harden wood. At that point it MAY have some cleaving capacity, it also depends a lot on the wood used.

And even if they couldn't cut well you still have a wooden club. If it worked for Caveman Ugg it will work for you.

File: images (10).jpg (6KB, 266x189px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 266x189px

Ummm a fuckin Kanabo.
Bad ass as fuck

>>33278792
>Polearms are weapons for use in the press, and as such are not ideal once combat breaks
Most historical battles never broke down into 1-on-1 melee fighting.

Fighting in formation was like 95% of what you'd do on the battlefield as an infantryman. The whole idea of two armies charging each other and the soldiers pairing off and fighting each other as if in a duel is mostly a Hollywood fabrication to make combat look cooler in movies.

File: halfsword katana.webm (2MB, 720x474px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x474px

>>33285650
>you can't use it to halfsword
Yes you can

>>33288630
This technically counts but so does a train

File: hand_outpaint.jpg (46KB, 742x223px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 742x223px

>>33271289

>>33276881
The classification of different weapons is basically arbitrary and dependent on what time and place/culture you're talking about.

The majority of specific terms used for say a pole-arm with a particular head or a sword of certain length/hilt/ect, are just whatever culture's term for the weapon class in general was at the time the weapon was used.

Sure, plenty of people agree and use the same terms a lot of the time, but it's still mostly arbitrary and you'll often hear different people use different definitions. So, I typically forego all that and keep it simple and call shit a sword, an axe, a spear, and so on.


That being said, the specific names are more fun, and are useful if you actually need to distinguish different styles of weapons... so if you want to learn ya something with no real application for funsies, I'd just google whatever ones you're interested in.

>>33279001
Well if you're only looking at it as "melee or ranged?" then it's certainly melee, but I'd argue "vehicular" should be a separate classification.

>>33266603
Too bad they can't get a quarter staff version of this working.

File: collapsible-bo-staff.jpg (50KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x800px

>>33289819

>>33289917
One that you can actually use like you would a quarter staff instead of just for pretending to be Darth Maul.

File: 1468064136934.jpg (106KB, 564x732px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 564x732px

>>33287595
>You're thinking of a single roman writer suggesting that everyone carry slings.
No, suggesting that it was general practice for soldiers to carry some kind of ranged weapon even when that was not their primary function.

>>33287595
>They explicitly did not, being armed initially as hoplites, and later with typical scutum, but still carrying the hasta and expected to fight solely as a phalanx.

Show me source for that? Hastati and principe did, both in early and later periods, and I can't recall anyone mentioning Triarii being excepted though I suppose given their function it's possible.

Both early and late period, whether as spearmen or swordsmen, roman heavy infantry generally carried javelins, both heavy and light pila are mentioned being carried in republican times though it's not clear if one line carried one type and one another, if each soldier carried one of each, or how exactly that worked. It stands to reason a commander might give different orders in different circumstances. But we know we had them and heavy infantry used them. One likely tactic using both types would be to launch the lights at the beginning of a charge and the heavies halfway through it. That would space them out about right so the enemy line takes a 1-2-3 punch, two flights of javelins followed quickly by the actual line of men.

File: 1459767329500.jpg (60KB, 558x784px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 558x784px

>>33287595
>You cannot practically carry two pilum and a hasta at the same time.

Sure you can, though admittedly it's not the easiest thing in the world. We don't know much for sure about the light one, it could have been small enough to tuck into a holder behind the shield the way bronze age hoplites sometimes carried theirs. Or it could have been carried together with the heavy in a bundle the way this fellow seems to be doing. You stop as a line, 40 feet from the enemy line, butt your heavy pila in the ground so you're free to throw the light ones. Then pull the heavies free, advance to 20 feet, throw the heavies on signal without stopping. And at that point carrying them is super easy because you aren't anymore. But your charge has a lot better chance of success with the javelins than without.

>>33285105
Early Hoplites had two spears, a long close combat spear and a shorter throwing spear. When their armor upgraded and the rise of lighter units arrived (peltasts, rhodesian slingers, etc) the second shorter spear was sorta ditched in favor of a more close combat approach exclusively.
But no slings no.

>>33285564
>"meta" heavy training system called itto-ryu
>not Jigen-ryu...
What do you mean, Itto-ryu didn't have specifically heavy training. What is this "meta" for?

Also, spear weren't used much for "duels".

>>33285650
>cutting down peasants
>can't use it to halfsword
>not good against armored opponents
Yeah sure, hopefully we have revealed koryu practice to dispel all this by now... Oh wait since the 70's actually ! (I'll keep posting this I suppose...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aeWU8CYl5M

>Also, a spearman will beat a swordsman in a duel, most of the time.
And that's why a formal duel involves pre-arranged weaponry.

>>33287081
>not "nothin personnel komsomol"
I can't believe I missed this... Gotta work on my meme more.

>>33266603
>>33266645
I wish someone made a telescopic spear.

Just gonna post this, it doesn't really add anything but it's pretty fucking cool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkDDBL7jNew

File: Somebody-Stop-Me-Gif-In-The-Mask.gif (2MB, 278x278px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 278x278px

https://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-steward-xiiia3.htm

I'm so close to getting it. Somebody please talk me out of it.

>>33290147
Why the Type XIIIa though?
Why not a "better" sword like a Type XVa or XVIa?

>>33271095
Is it legal to carry a sword in the U.S ?

>>33290159
fuck yeah it is

File: Pisani_Dossi_Ms._16r.jpg (323KB, 1280x1712px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1280x1712px

>>33290156
Because it's sexy. Dem blade proportions.

I must admit, it seems like it would be a little heavy. I was taught almost exclusively Fior di Battaglia, which calls for a fairly mobile sword for quick transitions. I think I could make it work with a heavier sword with some practice though.

Daily reminder that the knife is such a fundamentally useful survival tool and weapon that it literally predates humans as a species.

File: 1395611002694.jpg (55KB, 1333x1000px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1333x1000px

>>33290262
>knife
you misspelled club m8

>>33266645
this
this this this

a thousand times this

spears are king, and the rapier is perhaps the best sword ever imo, especially the cutting rapiers "sideswords"

File: rapierman.jpg (577KB, 1164x1600px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 1164x1600px

>>33270900
>rapiers only make sense in the context of lightly armored combat.

File: 510.jpg (26KB, 367x500px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 367x500px

Award to best melee all time goes to the spear.

Best melee modern for regular folks is a bat for home defense or a tire iron if mobile. You can argue your ninja swords all you want but in court it looks better. Same fact as using a fudd gun to kill an intruder looks better in court than an "assault rifle".

do you /k/ bros have any vidya recommendation with nice spear fuckery? (my favourite is Chivalry: MW)

File: large_orig_drawing_knight_arundel.jpg (52KB, 420x800px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 420x800px

>>33275762
Hundred Year War and War of the Roses (most of the 15th century) English knights mostly fought on foot, with chopped down lances and pole axes (a 5-6 foot pole with a spike at both ends and an axe/hammer head or spike at the business end) being the main weapon, as swords where pretty useless against the milanese plate armour being mass produced at the time. This was also the period when shield use died out, because you needed both hands to wield the pole axe to enable it to punch through plate or stun/knock over the wearer.

>>33284649
that's fucking cruel m8

>>33291311
>argue that rapiers are viable with a fantasy drawing
>titled rapierman
>isn't even holding a rapier

staygold.jpg

>>33279397
>spear breaks
>have assegai (short spear) and truncheon.

You could also pick up the knife that used to belong to the retard you just killed, because you could stab him safely while you was out of reach of his knife.

>>33284644
looks like something a videogame boss would use

>>33291528
>>argue that rapiers are viable with a fantasy drawing
It's Osprey, a drawer of accurate warriors and soldiers throughout time, you've pribably seen his work a lot if you've been on /k/ or /his/ for any length of time
>>titled rapierman
I retitled it, it's a Spanish Rodelero
>>isn't even holding a rapier
That's a rapier you dunce

>>33291544
Listen up, you fucking faggot: That in the picture is tiny, that is known as a smallsword, a rapier would be almost a foot longer overall than your average smallsword.
Rodeleros were armed with sideswords, which is basically the blade of a later period arming sword with a complex hilt and is absolutely not a rapier.
Eat a dick and don't talk out of your ass about matters you know nothing about.

>>33289917
>Paul Blart: Darth Maul Cop

File: 1479349702096.jpg (36KB, 491x404px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 491x404px

>>33291528
No, they're side-swords.

https://youtu.be/CR8I6YthMsE?t=6m15s

File: not a smallsword.png (206KB, 229x666px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 229x666px

>>33291701
>That in the picture is tiny, that is known as a smallsword, a rapier would be almost a foot longer overall than your average smallsword.
bullshit, the sword clearly has a cutting edge and is obviously not a court sword since the man wearing it is in battle with plate armor ffs. >Rodeleros were armed with sideswords, which is basically the blade of a later period arming sword with a complex hilt and is absolutely not a rapier.
Not to mention that a Rodelero would normally use a side-sword, and if you bothered to actually read about the sidesword, there is almost no defined difference between the Spada da Lato and the Espada Ropera, because the terms "rapier" and "sidesword" were used retroactively, and the sidesword is often referred to as the "cutting rapier".
In function, they are almost totally identically but the sidesword is usually considered a little more robust and battleworthy.

TL;DR
He is obviously using a sidesword, since the thing clearly has fucking edges and he is dressed for battle, and the sidesword is a rapier type. read a book and then kill yourself.

>>33291919
please read >>33291935

I swear to god, one of those historical fencing/HEMA youtubers is posting in this thread. Hi!

>>33291544
>That's a rapier you dunce
>>33291919
What's up with the board mangling the links to point to a different post like that?

>>33270341
A fucking face hugger? Fuck that shit

File: meyer rapier.png (561KB, 692x326px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 692x326px

>>33291982
the "civilian rapier" came out of the "sidesword" (keep in mind these are modern terms, and not historical ones) because someone wanted what was essentially a battle sword to be carried for civilian life. These were functionally almost identical, contemporaries, and the "sidesword" was by all rights a battle rapier.

look at what Meyer (teaching rapier) is using here, and tell me that doesn't look almost identical to what our osprey Rodelero is using.

>>33266645

Been watching "The musketeers" on Hulu.

3rd season starts with musketeers at war, big battle scene.

Heroes are armored up, leading the charge, swinging their car antenna swords. Just looks silly.

Good show though, for a basic good versus evil weekly adventure.

>>33291935
There are small swords with cutting edges you inbred. The fact that they are wearing armor, doesn't mean the person who drew them didn't make a mistake you shit-filled cunt.

>>33292015
As Easton explains, people at the time generally just referred to 'swords' without being more specific much of the time, and fencing masters would use both these types and others (broad/backsword types) and even non-sword weapons as well. But in modern usage, a rapier is a specialized thruster, heavier and longer, while the swords of the same basic shape but smaller and allowing for the slash are called small swords instead. The distinction isn't new, we're only tidying up the language to be more clear about the distinction, which is about length, weight, and crucially blade cross-section. You don't use a triangular blade if you're making a slashing weapon.

And what you've been posting appear to be small swords.

>>33292057
i seriously doubt that that is, even with a (debatable) drawing error, it looks anything like pic related when it much closer resembles what i posted here (>>33292015)
that is clearly a depiction of a sidesword/cutting rapier to me, and this only makes sense because it depicts a Rodelero.

>>33292172
this is why the sidesword is often called the "cutting rapier", and why even a "civilian rapier", while specialized for thrusting, can be used to cut.
this isn't any court or dress sword, it was a battle weapon.

i also wonder how much nonspecificity of language plagues our dialoge, because my idea of a smallsword comes fromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_sword
wherein it is synonymous with court and dress sword, an epee, and no battle weapon.

>>33270900

>implying spears and rapiers aren't good for heavy armor

but that's wrong you retard

>murder strikes, half swording
I'm sick of this meme. this shit was only done with large, two handed or hand and half sword. standard longswords and arming swords were never any good for these techniques. also, those strikes were almost ONLY used in duels.

>warhammer excells in armored combat as opposed to sword

you've never actually studied any HEMA, gone to any matches, or had any training. hammers are complete shit. hard to change direction, horrid balance, wears out your arm, only 2 attack angles and a predictable attack line, missing throws off balance, and much, much more.

plate armor was worn with chainmail and gambeson underneath, meaning that much of the "damage" from an impact weapon was absorbed before it ever got to the wearer.

swords on the other hand, with proper technique and a good arm, could punch straight through plate. chainmail and gambeson would slow it down so it's not like a man could ram it straight through your body, but a good sword could give you a nasty, 3-5 inch puncture wound right through your armor. spears were also extremely deadly to knights, as were crossbows and longbows. nearly every weapon available was better against armor than a fucking "warhammer"

File: peasants overwhelm knight.jpg (37KB, 450x335px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 450x335px

>>33266521
A splitting maul for the common man, or a poleaxe for the richer warrior. Split armor, slice flesh, shatter bones, break wills... nothing better

File: 1459508434800.jpg (82KB, 490x336px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 490x336px

>>33292496
Ugh, part of the problem is my fault, after correctly writing 'side sword' I started incorrectly writing 'small sword' instead. They are different things and I did not mean to bring small swords into it, but to continue discussing side swords. Sorry.

>>33292015
>"rapier"
>"sidesword"
>keep in mind these are modern terms, and not historical ones
Yet "rapier" is used in Meyer's treatise and "spada da lato" in several italian treatises of the 16th century, especially those of the Bolognese tradition.
Meyer's rappier is by all means what is typically referred to as a sidesword and even his techniques are very close to the Bolognese sources.

>>33292609
>swords on the other hand, with proper technique and a good arm, could punch straight through plate

Oh god, you're that fucking piss drinker from the longbow thread a week or two ago, aren't you?
I'll tell you what I told you in that thread: show me a video of someone going through a proper hardened 2mm (at least) breastplate, riveted mail and a gambeson with a sword, regardless of the angle, and I will drink bleach.

>>33292638
it's all gute kindred, is that your sword?

>>33292648
exactly, rapier and sidesword were all but interchangeable, technique with rapier was technique with sidesword, the differences being so minimal that they are all but interchangeable.

File: tuck.jpg (122KB, 800x492px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 800x492px

>>33292676
he might be referring to a Tuck or so?

>>33292676

swords were specifically designed for the task. if they didn't fucking work, they wouldn't have fucking used them. there are numerous videos on youtube of people thrusting long swords and such through a breast plate, although most of the are only getting about an 1-2 inches being that they aren't practiced swordsmen or even in good shape. that being said, I'm not here to spoon feed you, do your own research and unfuck your mismatched hollywood knowledge of historical weapons.

now go drink some bleach, faggot

>>33292695
Ok, an estoc might make that feasible, but calling one a sword is like calling a playstation a computer. It technically is one, but in a specialized niche that deserves it's own name.

>>33292752
yea

>>33292609
>swords on the other hand, with proper technique and a good arm, could punch straight through plate


>>33292737
>swords were specifically designed for the task

you ought to aim for the joints/exposed areas. trying to punch through breastplate is pure retardation and waste of energy/time/life

>>33275762
Or because spears are longer than swords and it's ideal to keep the enemy as far away while you can, before drawing your sword and engaging in close.

No spear is going to penetrate plate armour, period. Both swords and spears can get through mail if you thrust hard enough.

>>33292609
>the one guy who thinks a longsword is a small sword
Pretty much every manual that shows half-swording is using a longsword/"hand-and-a-half" sword you nonce

>>33292609
>swords could punch straight through plate
Fucking no you complete fucking retard.

>>33285564
>unironically the katana
very funny, anon

File: sflynt_polearms001_s.jpg (31KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x300px

Poleaxe - Nothing it can't kill

>>33292609
>swords on the other hand, with proper technique and a good arm, could punch straight through plate

Have your (You) fucking retard

>>33274755
>best melee weapon
>kukri
No anon
It's an okay machete
It's an okay knife
It's an okay hatchet
It's an okay fighting tool
It's great in terms of versatility
It's synonymous to the Gurkhas who are badass
Not the best melee weapon

t. someone who loves kukris

>>33274682
mirin dat companion sword, senpai.

>>33266521
The naginata. Basically a katana on top of a longer shaft, to make it a bit spear-like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naginata

>>33266521
Gladius. May not have been the best dueling weapon, nor the prettiest or the fastest but she was a work horse and the men that built Rome preferred her.

>>33285400
Good offensively, terrible defense. Try spar with one.

File: s1.jpg (80KB, 1972x658px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1972x658px

How about a light military saber?
One handed and great for fencing. Also damn cool.

File: 1487015381746.png (9KB, 642x371px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 642x371px

>>33296086
>a weighted tip that turns into a blood channel