>The sword in this time period was the most personal weap

>>34154376
The hatred is for the autists, not the weapons.

>>34154401
Thank you.

I still see so many examples of people using swords for home defense in cucked countries.

>>34154376
>Were the swords the guns in medieval-renaissance era?

No, the guns were the guns in medieval-renaissance era.

>>34154376
Swords actually went out of style when the katana was invented. Guns were actually invented to avoid fighting katana wielders.

>>34154604
>Renaissance era
>Not carrying a handgonne and rapier as your edc
>ISHYGDDT

Who cares, carry a sword if you want it doesn't effect me.

>>34154604
Except you can only carry pistols and it was useless after the first shot.

>>34154632
Ans do? Pistols were still widely used as personal defence weapons in the Renaissance era, what does should it means that you have only one shot, nobody wants to get shot, true now, true then.

Swords aren't exactly like guns are pistols, they are there own thing, sure there are some parallels, but when handguns were out there, it's idiotic to refer to "swords as the pistols of the renaissance era".

I don't hate swords; quite the contrary. I dislike wall hangers and people who buy weapons, but don't bother learning about them and practicing their use.

As for being "the guns" of the medieval-renaissance period, it depends. Swords in many societies were expensive and often secondary weapons. Likewise, there were often prohibitions on such weaponry in cities, unless you were cleared by the the ruling elite. And as armor developed, swords became increasingly niche. So, if you were well-to-do, you may carry a sword for personal defense or a backup weapon in combat. But the dagger, hatchet, and cudgel were likely more common.

>>34154650
And? pistols are useless after the first shot, meaning you can get swarmed if there are more than two attackers.

>Pistols were still widely used as personal defence weapons in the Renaissance era
Wrong, swords are cheaper and can be used after firing once.
>but when handguns were out there, it's idiotic to refer to "swords as the pistols of the renaissance era".
Except handguns back then were cumbersome, and as said, hold only one shot.

>>34154657
Can we cut the sword being expensive meme out? By the 12th centuries, swords are already dirt cheap and even peasants can afford them.
http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/medprice.htm

>And as armor developed, swords became increasingly niche.
What are you talking about? The sword outlives plate armor, it's a very important secondary weapon, a pikeman is basically deadmeat without a sword as backup.

>>34154668
What makes you think that people were only carrying pistols? Those who would carry pistols would also carry sword and daggers, you don't choose between them...

What does swords being cheap have to do with the usage of pistols exactly? What kind of logic is this. This is as silly as "spear or sword?", the answer is always both.

>>34154744
You have to realize pistols of the era are made of varying quality, some might even blow up in your hand.

There are also the matter of availability and the steep prices compared to a dingy sword.

A sword is a more reliable piece of equipment.

>>34154833
And this is not to mention, pistols weren't even available during most of medieval times.

Swords are less effective against armore than spears, so when armor technology started to get pretty good in the later part of the middle-ages, the sword fell into side-arm status.

Once guns came about, the swords became more useful again because people started using less armor. Its at this point you see cavalry carry swords, though they often carried pistols too.

>>34156276
>Swords are less effective against armore than spears, so when armor technology started to get pretty good in the later part of the middle-ages, the sword fell into side-arm status.
That's ridiculous, since Antiquity did people used spears and swords in conjunction, Persians, Greeks, Romans, etc...
Swords are side arms because you can wear them at your side, you can't wear spears at your hip, hence, not a side arm, it doesn't have to do with efficiency but convenience.

>>34156276
What are you talking about, in the early middle ages the vast majority of people could not afford swords. Swords were sidearms later on because they are easy to wear on your hip whatever your primary weapon is.

Spears were not even used by most people in the later middle ages because they were replaced by things that do not suck against armour like halberds or pikes to better deal with cavalry.

>>34154657
>Likewise, there were often prohibitions on such weaponry in cities, unless you were cleared by the the ruling elite.
Only in parts of Germany. There were no such restrictions in most other countries. In fact, some countries, like England, required the ownership of a sword.

Also swords ranged in price, from extremely affordable to rich folk only.

>>34156276
>Swords are less effective against armore than spears
No man portable melee weapons are actually effective against armor. Even maces and warhammers gained their effective by ringing someone's bell, not by trying to bust through the chest. Even firearms, for centuries, were ineffective against plate, it's why plate armor lasted all the way up until WWI.

>>34156550
>In fact, some countries, like England, required the ownership of a sword.

No, they specified what you had to own by how wealthy you were, not everyone was expected to own a sword. This varies a lot by era too. Non nobles were still banned from walking around cities with swords though, you had to leave them with your host/inn.

>>34156571
They still made armour become so damn heavy it was no longer practical for infantry to wear it. They had bulletproof siege helmets in the 16th century but they weighed 20 pounds.

There is a reason it disappeared from general service and was mostly used by cavalry or specialist soldiers.

I despise fantasy swords and wall-hangers the same way a car person might despise people who rice out a Honda Civic. They're cheap Chinese stamped metal objects belched out of some Tianjin factory which would explode on impact into a cloud of metal shards shearing off the face of their greasy pimpled users if ever actually brought into combat. That goes for nearly all mall katanas and Hanwei shit, as well. It's not that they exist which bothers me. It's that people don't realize their fucking $60 Hot Topic Final Fantasy Blade of Xzzngmorph does not compare in any manner to a $1400 Albion.

>>34156695
I don't think there is anything wrong with liking real swords and also liking fantasy swords that are not stupid.

Some companies make beautiful, fully functional replicas of film swords.

>>34157128
>Some companies make beautiful, fully functional replicas of film swords.

Absolutely, Albion is one of them and there are countless smiths who would be happy to build you a sword from a movie you love.

One day I want to get one of Albion's version of Conan's atlantean sword.

>>34158154
Have you ever bought a sword from Dark Sword Armory?

>>34154616
Is this true?

>>34158186
Yes, sold it quickly

Stay far away from DSA, those swords are more like death traps for the person swinging it

Buy from Valiant Armoury or Albion's squire line for a sikilar price

>>34158214
Thanks for the tip.

Are we talking blade shattering or blade flying out of the grip dangerous.

i wish swords would become a thing again. not like in some faggy weeaboo way, but like for real. modern metallurgy also makes them more useful as tools. i think self defense laws could accommodate as well.

just imagine some group of niggers walks up trying to fight you. jamal had the gun last night and got caught by the cops. they need money and they are angry and black. do you really wanna be on the news for shooting 5 black people 17 times? you draw your SVD-59 cold forged 26in gladius. you walk away leaving 2 dead, 2 amputated, and one has fleed...dickless. you yourself has sustained some injury and have started on anti-retrovirals. the news hails you a hero and the cops dont charge anything. the gods smile on you from valhalla.

>>34158362
Flying out of the grip

The pommel on mine slid off in the middle of a cut. They claim that their swords are peened but the one I had was screwed on and had a false peen block and fake peen. The tang actually ended halfway into the pommel and was practically held on with epoxy

>tfw somebody bought the antique smallsword on Matt Easton's website I was looking to buy before me

>>34154376
No, bows were, and they're still a viable weapon today. Eurofags take note, you may not be able to get guns but an arrow volley is just as deadly as it was 1000 years ago.

>>34158189
Yes

>>34158762
Im thinking about a modern crossbow.

File: il_570xN.1117197991_ivia.jpg (99KB, 570x380px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 570x380px

>>34154376
Fallen Oak Forge gladius, do want.

>>34154604
came to post exactly this.

thankyou for fighting against the autist

File: 03x09-07-04.jpg (22KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 512x384px

>>34158836
I think I might be an autist faggot now.

>>34158836
Thicc

With that kind of handle, doesn't it technically make it a knife?

File: MisterEd.jpg (37KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x376px

>>34154668
time to learn how to aim and pull a trigger - 20 seconds

time to learn how to effectively use a blade - a lifetime

also, just one gun?

>>34158865
What does Ziggy think?

>>34154376
I feel like the ax was the gun of the medieval era. Maybe the knife as well (esp when rigged to a stick for a spear)