Would pirate or sailors ever get a second longer saber to go

>>34227108
Why not use a pistol?

>>34227169
wet powder

>>34227183
Keep your powder dry then, getting it wet is a flogging offense.

>>34227183

>Wet powder
I can tell that you've never handled a flint lock, let alone handled one when it's wet as fuck out
If they're not retarded, wet powder wouldn't be an issue at all.

>>34227108
>tfw I have the top and bottom swords in the pic.

>>34227722
hemburg or milsco and how do you like it?

Cutlasses were an issue weapon kept in the ships armoury until combat was likely. It's doubtful that a seaman would be permitted weapons in his personal belongings.

Of course privateers could wield whatever they wanted (and could afford).

>>34227108
Usually a multitude of arms were kept, and fighting men were just as pragmatic then as now. That being said, most would own and train with one weapon (not counting wasters and such for sparring etc).
And as far as reach goes, you'd look to firearms for real reach, but in the 1700s boarding pikes (more like spears really but who names things) were not unheard of. When the enemy has to come at you over a gangplank, a long weapon with two hands on it is a great option.

>>34227108
If you could afford two swords why the fuck would you be working to death on a boat

>>34228162
because you like carnage

>>34228552
Hence
>>34227959
>Of course privateers could wield whatever they wanted (and could afford).
/thread

>>34228162
Because swords weren't as expensive as you think.

>>34227108
Officers were typically trained to handle longer swords, and many carried one as a gentleman's sidearm on land. On ship, shorter, handier swords were more useful.

>>34227959
In the Royal Navy it wasn't common for enlisted or officers to a sidearm day to day, but a ship is made of weapons. Every sailor carried a knife and belaying pins are extremely serviceable clubs, while axes were kept handy for emergencies that might require cordage be severed very quickly. Marines on duty were armed with muskets and bayonets.

File: large_000000.jpg (18KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 800x532px

>>34228564
>>34228162

In the case of a naval officer a lot of the time one sword would be a gift, something given by their family to keep a young man safe on the street, while the cutlass with chains run though the hilts in a locker aren't something they would be expected to pay for the privilege of using, any more then he would be expected to pay for the use of a boarding axe or pistol.

By the Napoleonic wars RN officers were given a standardized sword that was long and single edged. While a fine weapon it wasn't particularly useful on the confines of a ship and in the event of boarding the officer would likely get a pistol and cutlass from the locker, not his sword.

On surrendered ships it would sometimes take a while for the Captain's servant to find his master's sword in order to present it during the surrender.

>>34227108
The cutlass exists for 3 reason unique to marine combat. 1, the manual of arms is very simple. Basically, it is used like a club, except it has a blade. But pretty much swing it in one direction. 2, sailors were not trained swordsman. In fact, they pretty much sucked at it. A sailor's duties were mostly maintaining and running the ship - not fencing. That is why ships have marines that are trained in combat but are loaded on ships. 3, close combat on ships does not allow for fancy fencing.

If, you know how to actually use a sword, a gladius or small sword would be a better weapon. But again, sailors were not trained (much/well) in handling weapons.

>>34228670
That would suck, surrendering and having to give up the sword you payed your own cash for

>>34228670
nice sword

>>34230542
On the other hand if you captured a ship you'd get a share of it's value and if the sword was surrendered to you the rules allowed you to do whatever you wanted with it. Sell it, keep it as a trophy, give it to a higher ranked officer to get some consideration, ect.

>>34227108
I remember reading somewhere that that most pirate captains only required having musket and beyond that you could pretty much have anything you wanted.

>>34232682
The articles of Bartholomew Roberts ship included a rule that said all crew members must keep their cutlasses sharp and we'll maintained. This would seem to imply that most if not all privateers/pirates carried a sword.

>>34227108
of course, back then blades were mass produced on machines in chinese sweat shops and could be bought for a pittance, maybe a quarter of a days labor. they would have 3 or 4 sabers of varying lengths and instead of sharpening them just throw them overboard when dull and buy a new one

File: royal-navy-boarding-pikes-1797-1889-patterns.jpg (58KB, 841x278px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 841x278px

>>34227108
Big fucking stick with a sharp pointy thing = boarding pike
Swords are sort of there once you're in the guts of the ship, chasing people around in close confines and assuming you've shot off all your pistols

>>34229205
This. Is. Bullshit.

Watch scholagladiatoria videos on cutlass.
They were not used as clubs, and sailors WERE trained to use them. The manuals were a more simplified version of infantry saber exercises, but they weren't "swing like club lol". They learned cuts, guards, parries, footwork and so on.

Remember sailors spent a long time out of combat, sailing to and fro. A bored crew is a dangerous to its officers. In the royal navy at least, they trained in cutlass a fuckload, to keep morale up, stave off boredom and keep up fitness. They even held Singlestick competitions and rewarded the best swordsmen with rest from duties or more pay or whatever.

How the fuck is a glaudius a better weapon, exactly? It's a fairly shit sword without a shield. No hand protection whatsoever so shit for defending with and nowhere near as good at cutting.

>>34229205
Oh and good luck defending against someone thrusting a boarding pike or swinging a boarding axe at you with a smallsword. Lmao.

Smallswords are only good against other smallswords. They're short, can't cut at all, have no hand protection, and are too light tonsafely block anything heavier than 900g without the grip flying into your face. It's not a weapon of war, it's a weapon of agreement. You wear a smallsword, so I wear a smallsword. Tr cutlass is a weapon of war. You'd be an idiot or an extreme good fencer to face off against one armed with a smallsword.

And the glaudius is a hilariously shit weapon if used without a shield.

>>34227221
>I can tell you've never used a special novelty weapon that stopped existing before the Louisiana purchase
Ok?

>>34233020
Plus the smallsword is essentially the olde timey 'everyday carry' where you might need it to defend yourself against someone similarly armed, one on one, maybe more than one.

Stuff like the cutlass is good for screaming, no rules shitfight melee where there multiple people out to murder one another by any means possible. hacking, slashing and the odd poking is better for that than controlled and measured poking with a smallsword.

>>34232887
I meant that there wasn't any special requirerment on which type of sword they had to carry

>>34227108
Why carry two swords when you could have a spear or bow or extra musket stuff. Swords are only good for close quarters (which was different at that time)

File: wet pocket.jpg (480KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 960x540px

>>34227183
>wet powder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI-ONPftL8g

>>34232893
what

>>34233184
>capped and bullet rammed so hard into chamber that part of it is shaved of vs. flintlock pan and patched ball

>>34233020
>>34233020
Several sources points out that smallsword is totally ok against broadsword though, McBane for a start.
It's just a different fight than against another smallsword, that's all.