Where swords actually good at slicing? I feel like they where

>>34436658
It was a sidearm, would you go into battle with only a pistol?

Yes
But nevermind my strategy

What do you mean it was only used as sidearm?
Did people mainly use spears and arrows?

>>34436737
spears are the definitely the most common weapon type of weapon throughout history before gunpowder (even after it was used in the form of pikes, and bayonets are pretty much spears)

yes swords are sharp

>>34436869
Thats what it is i feel they wetrnt ad sharp as game of thrones makes them seem.

>>34436658
>Where swords actually good at slicing?

Horribly, and terrifyingly so.

early medieval to middle of the medieval era, when its broad lenticular blades, or later falchions and messers, later sabres and hangars, in particular excel in the cut. If you're wearing a shirt, padded clothing, they're going to go right through that, and you with impunity.

later medieval swords (the narrower thrusting types, renaissance/baroque era rapiers, and the later smallsword are not quite as horribly effective in the cut, but they are all more than capable of slicing chunks out of your flesh, at a minimum.
non-european arms were no different.

> I feel like they where mainly used to stab peasants, criminals, week and defenseless, and the edge was mainly used just to decapitate and execute

no. just, no. aside from the nonsense about criminals, the weak, etc. the edge was not just used to decapitate. there are a host of methods, the push-cut or draw-cut, the schnitt, and similar methods of using the edge.

as for only time the edge would be used, that is absolute nonsense.

the important defining element of if the sword was used for the cut or not was if the target was armoured - that alone is the criteria which prevented the effectiveness of the cut.

File: Oakeshott_types.png (187KB, 667x802px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 667x802px

youtube is a better place to learn history than movies and TV
https://youtu.be/T21uXihIZcI

File: My Valiant Armoury Rhinelander 5.jpg (611KB, 1758x1490px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 1758x1490px

>>34437023
This

>>34437023
This is the best answer you will get.
Read it twice.
Swords were in use for thousands of years for a very good reason.

>>34439751
this

i dont know if you watch any gore/wrecked threads but on here there is one photo of a guy in an ER got slashed up with a knife just had chunks of flesh hanging off him, a longer blade would just sheer and cause so much physical damage on a solid hit I'd be surprised if someone didn't get mortally wounded to the point they were bleeding out extremely quick if it wasn't a full amputation. Guys in armor use to get killed a lot even with it covering their vitals, and it'd happen in mass slaughters even.

File: grosses_messer.jpg (154KB, 763x800px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 763x800px

>>34436658
It is dependent on the style of sword. Curved and swords weighted towards the tip are amazing at slicing and chopping. Swords like the ones you posted are still good at slicing, but are a compromise between slicing and stabbing. The estoc and rapiers are the ultimate stabbers, by compromising their ability to cut.

Falcions were specialized to chop up lightly armored peasants. Look at a machete attack victim to see how they worked

>>34440249
just call your image "big knife" you autist.

File: 2016-10-25-16.45.24-660x224.jpg (15KB, 660x224px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 660x224px

>>34440267
>>34440249
Call it whatever you call these stupidass commifornia legal loopholes.

It's the same fucking thing, from 600 years ago.

>>34436658
A cut is less likely to be immediately lethal, but just as or even sometimes more incapacitating.

A stab to the lung will kill you in a few minutes, but you'll still be conscious and capable of fighting for quite awhile, 10-30 seconds. But a good cut to the upper arm will disable it almost instantly, often quick enough that even if you're mid-swing, you will not be able to actually land it. A good cut to the thigh will knock you down, and you probably won't be able to stand back up.

File: sword1.jpg (52KB, 575x480px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 575x480px

Slightly related (not worth making another thread imo) were swords used for defense against wildlife? Are there any records of it, and if so what swords were used for it? should one use a slicing or a stabbing weapon?

Always wondered this, but I'm thinking about getting something to protect myself. My town is overrun with wild animals, predators have followed and its unsafe to walk at dusk. inb4 spears and guns b/c nogunz country + carrying a spear in 2017 is a good chuckle all the way to the looney bin.

>>34441163

Yes, i cant remember quite where i read the story, but its about a man who was attacked by a boar, but had forgotten his sword and so bashed it to death with a book (big iron bound one), which is why a local forest has some weird name.

>>34440267

It is technically a knife to get around old German laws or something like that. Similar to the Seax.

And then there's the fucking Kriegsmesser.

>>34436658
Well your feelings are wrong.
They cut and very well, to be hit by one would be extremely painful, there is a skull found in a mass grave in Visby which has had half its face cut away, cleanly, from one strike.

>>34441163
yes, people specifically took swords with them hunting

>>34436961
>game of thrones
Pants on head retard tier swordplay.

>>34441163
Collapsing spear.

File: Forge welding example Landesmuseum.jpg (69KB, 378x637px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 378x637px

Let's put it logically :

A sword was expensive to make, since it required a specific range of skills and lots of metal : Refined, forged, tempered high-carbon steel made from the purest source of iron possible. Steel was expensive in the early Middle-Age.
Even with the cost and time required for making a sword, there was still the possibility that it would break or bend in battle, then all of that investment would be lost. You or your servant had to maintain its edge and protect it from rust, constantly.

Compare that to a club or a spear : it doesn't require as much metal. The steel doesn't have to be as pure. The village blacksmith can make it for very little cost. You can equip a force rapidly with it. Maintenance is minimal.

Why would you chose a sword, then ? The only reason to chose a sword is because it does something that a spear or a club cannot, which is cutting.

File: hb_48.26.jpg (111KB, 2000x1090px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 2000x1090px

>>34441191
>It is technically a knife to get around old German laws or something like that.
Newer research indicates that it was more of a market dispute, with the knifemakers' guild trying to get that sword dosh and the swordmakers' guild trying to stop it. This is what led to the "it's just a big knife, totally not a sword" thing.

>>34441163
People carried hunting swords, mainly used to dispatch game and defend themselves in case the animal wasn't truly out.

File: va-409-04-1200x800.jpg (604KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 1200x800px

>good at cutting
>excellent at thrusting
>becomes even better at thrusting when half-swording
>excellent hand-defense in the crossguard, which incidentally makes an excellent improvised hammer when facing heavily armored foes
>sturdy construction in the peened pommel, which also makes a good bludgeoning tool

Name a better or more versatile sword than the longsword, I fucking dare you

>>34441946
rapier,estoc and saber did pretty well as sidearms in an era that armor started to became useless because gunpowder popularity

>>34436658
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKrUCjkPzFo

No, european swords were plenty sharp and both cutting and chopping was used frequently.

>>34441191
Laws regarding weapons restrictions only existed in certain areas of France and England during certain time periods. In the German states, people were actually encouraged to own weapons because every state and independent city had a Burgerwehr miltia to draw from during war. Like this anon said >>34441919 it was mainly a pissing math between the various sword and knife making guilds.

>>34441964
>armor became useless
>people still used swords
Isn't there a contradiction here ? How does it work ?

>>34442085
Swords are better for fighting unarmoured opponents anyway. You will notice that, as armour use declined, sword design changed to reflect that.

>>34440482
I can't even imagine trying to hold this

>>34442085

because it took way too long to reload?

Pikes and shit were used right alongside matchlocks and flintlocks, and soldiers carrying muskets were issued bayonets, at which point the saber became a cavalry/officer's weapon.

File: navaja.jpg (86KB, 736x1254px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 736x1254px

>>34441191
>>34442003
On that, I think an early modern example of weapons made to circumvent weapons laws where the large spanish Navajas, large folding knifes to get around some legislation regarding fixed blade weapons.

>>34441186
From what i have understood there were lots of killing of rats with swords and it was a lucrative bussiness as they often carried gold coins and such!

>>34436658
A combat tomahawk gives you a skull spliting cutting edge, a crowbar, two feet of reach, abillity to fell smaller trees.Eastman makes a very serviceable on for $40

>>34436699
Wasn't a sidearm before 1000AD though, before mail and plate came into widespread use

>>34442101
It seems to me that, besides sabers, late period swords really got narrower and, I assume, less sharp.

>>34442530
Now, my question is : why didn't cavalry used armor if they fought in melee ?

File: 1498589534952.jpg (62KB, 697x678px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 697x678px

>>34436658
Google kilij, shit only slices

File: assad lmao.jpg (37KB, 750x709px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 750x709px

>>34437023

> OP didnt make the cut

>>34440151

> Armor provides AC
> attack roll is high enough to overcome AC
> does full dice roll of damage

I would say d&d generally had it right, but it is a little more complex than that. Still, it would make the game too tedious to shave off a quarter of the damage unless you rolled high enough over the armor.

File: CS97GMS_l.jpg (256KB, 838x1718px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 838x1718px

>>34440267
>>34440482

Or we'll just call this a machete instead of a sword.

>>34441338
> he hits with his spear
> but then it collapses
> somehow this isnt a defect

>>34442003
> germans were the first burgers

>>34441771
this

Spears are cheap, are just as deadly on a thrust, and they've got REACH. And if the fucker is stupid enough to come charging straight at you, you can just throw it at him.

> throwing a spear is a thing, since thats how primitive man made the woolly mammoth extinct

>>34436658
well not always stabbing peasants. look at katanas, they were made for slicing unarmored flesh. and samurai would always kill slaves and peasants for literally no reason, like they would literally like them up just to cut them what a great time period lol

I've seen plenty of vids and pics of people getting sliced open and losing limbs with machetes. I imagine a sword would be just as effective, if not moreso with the added mass of it

File: master wizard.jpg (5KB, 256x192px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 256x192px

>>34441964
>>34442085
>>34442530

Early muskets pretty much == Crossbows. Same damage and penetration, same reload time. Except you could carry more ammunition for muskets and it was cheaper than making bolts.

Crossbows were considered a dishonorable weapon because of how effective they were, and the fact they were a 1st shot ambush opportunity (also dishonorable). "You shot your bolt" then you pulled out your sword/axe.

> however a musket will also splinter the wood of a tree on a graze if you hit the tree a person is hiding behind
> and the report from it will scare horses that arent trained to deal with it
> also a terror weapon because of the report

But the ease of use and widespread development of gunpowder were just too hard to pass up so everyone started using muskets.

Contrary to popular belief the earlier muskets didnt have the firepower to get through plate armor. But it was JUST AS EASY to shoot the knight's mount, and without the horse to carry him all you had to do was kick his arm out of the way and stick a dagger to his throat and you had him.

The .75cal brown bess could pierce plate armor though, and at that point the only reason knights were kept was for cavalry tactics in case they didn't think someone would be a formally armed military.

> if you've got the armor sitting around, you might as well, it will deflect grazing shots after all, and if you're coming in as cavalry you're not going to be in the middle of the battle as a sitting duck

Then they got rid of spears and just put the bayonet on the end of the musket.

File: DSCN0461.jpg (407KB, 1239x735px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 1239x735px

>Where swords actually good at slicing?

Some swords are very good at chopping through people. There's a skeleton form the battle of Visby mass graves that had one leg severed entirely, and one of the two bones in the other lower leg severed as well, all form a single cut, most likely form a sword. Testing under ideal circumstances could at times have a sword cut clean through the torsos of multiple people in a single cut. The Visby and Towton skeletons both had plenty of cutting injuries.

Now this is "percussive" cut. You swing at the target, though you should also have a small slicing component in there. Light, more or less accidental hits may bite to the bone.

Now some other swords aren't all that good at this kind of attack. They may even be very poor at it, like some bronze age swords with almost no tangs at all, that would quickly have blade and grip torn apart if used for something like this. But, having edges, you can still use more or less purely slicing cuts with these, and naturally you can also do that with the more "proper" cutting swords if you find yourself in a suitable position for it. Will it do damage? Swords tended to be quite sharp, not scalpels, but most determinately sharp enough. Drag a foot or three of edge along someone and, yes, short of armour the damage will be horrendous, though taking off limbs will probably be bloody hard. Serious attempts will certainly be bloody at least.

And then some, rather rare, swords will have focused so entirely on the thrust that they have no edges to speak of, and won't even be able to slice really either.

So it very much depends on which sword you're talking about.

I'd also question the widespread adoption (beyond pure executioner's tools) of a weapon only good for defeating the defenceless. You can use almost anything for that task, a stick you picked off the ground or a weapon capable of defeating those who fight back. So you make your weapons to fight the defence-able.

File: c02v.jpg (3KB, 88x292px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 88x292px

>>34442855
Saying anything much about a sword form its profile alone is a very dangerous game. They're very much three dimensional objects, so the needle may very well outweigh the barn door for example.

As for sharpness, Peter Johnsson (a sword smith who tends to know his shit) seems to think that the ultimate edge angle on swords saw remarkably little variation for any kind of sword meant to have an edge in the first place, ie the vast majority of them. I guess there's simply a very good compromise between keen and resilient to be found there.

What makes a cutting sword is instead the cross-sectional profile behind that edge, and the balance of the blade. The former tries to find a way to get the rest of the blade through the opening the edge cuts with a minimum of effort, while the latter aims to get a reasonable amount of inertia into your swing to help push the blade through what resistance the cross sectional shape can't get around.

And of course, there's no single right answer to either of those two issues.

This might work: http://www.ustream.tv/embed/recorded/23590865

File: 284309948_tp.jpg (15KB, 217x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 217x300px

>>34436658

Aztecs made wooden swords with sharp glass for blades. This thing is pretty much like being hit by a chainsaw.

However the conquistadors wore Breastplate armor and enough greaves and leggings to make them an absolutely sweaty diseased fucking mess in the subtropics of central america.

So when aztecs went to fight them, besides a few of them being shot, their wood swords didn't do jack shit to them (literally, thousands of dead aztec later most of the conquistadors were still in proper working order). No Stab meant no way of getting around that armor.

Meanwhile the spanish had steel and they was cutting and stabbing through any aztec shields, and probably cutting through their swords too. They would've had to maintain those swords because of using them so frequently as machetes to cut through the jungle growth.

So really the major reason (besides disease) that the spanish beat them was because of ARMOR.

The aztec swords were just as good at cutting as the metal ones.

File: 4556_91766847444_559907444_1857375_.jpg (49KB, 604x536px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 604x536px

Why do Short Swords get so much shit?

File: 1914.jpg (63KB, 758x500px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 758x500px

>>34442085
No, armour faded away in the 16th and 17th centuries. Swords remained useful for longer, because even though the prevalence of firearms made armour more trouble than it was worth, melee combat was still a pretty regular occurrence, and that's not a situation where reloading a muzzle-loader will be much fun.

>>34443211
Most knights had traded their lance for a brace of pistols and become pistoleers on the battlefield (if still knights socially) a century and a half before the Brown Bess came around.

Cavalry still remained useful though, both shock cavalry to smash formations and light cavalry to chase down the fleeing. And it was certainly not just brought along in case you wouldn't be fighting proper military forces. They brought cavalry to the battlefields of 1914, and for the the jingoistic fervor of the time, I don't think the French dismissed the Germans as not having a formally armed military.

As for kicking the knights arms away, he'd better have taken a bad fall as you shot his horse, or you may loose leg.

>>34437131

XVIIIb is the sexiest by far

>>34443363
> the ringwraith sword style

File: HPIM1747.jpg (23KB, 800x597px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 800x597px

>>34443366
That'd be XVIIIe.

File: My Valiant Armoury Rhinelander 3.jpg (738KB, 1911x1248px) Image search: [Google]

738KB, 1911x1248px

>>34443287
Because why have a short sword when longswords are so sexy?

>>34443287

Romanticism, the same reason that the sword is held in higher regard than the polearm, cudgel or firearm. I mean, why would a hero of a story use a lowly dagger or shortsword? Or a weapon of dishonorable reach? Obviously they would wield a beautiful longsword...

>>34443129
You can lock it open or closed you dumb nigger.

>>34442855
>Now, my question is : why didn't cavalry used armor if they fought in melee ?
Mostly cultural inertia, and the fact that it's useless against the musket at the time period it was mostly discarded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_lobsters
These guys wore armor in an era when the heaviest all other English cavalry wore was a breastplate and buff leather. They did very well but it is notable that they were few in number and (probably deliberately) only challenged cavalry and never infantry.

>>34436658

>ITT: Mrs. Thompson's 5th grade class debates the merits of the cruciform sword for creating slashing wounds on unarmored targets

>>34441771
Therefore the pike is democratic, and exponentially efficient when used in ranks. It is the white man's weapon.

>>34443255
The Aztec Cotton armour was enough to stop the Aztec obsidian "swords". Some of Cortes' men abandoned their hot as fuck breastplates and donned cotton armour as they deemed it good enough.
The victories of the Spanish were due to much more than superior weaponry, although it sure helped them.

Curved swords>straight swords
fite me

File: 0.jpg (93KB, 980x651px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 980x651px

>>34441338
China is trying out a new baton that either extends or combines with another baton into a spear.

http://xw.qq.com/cmsid/NEW2014042900904404

>>34447213
that sounds fucking retard tier

File: tumblr_n89mn8qaEB1r3080to1_500.jpg (84KB, 500x446px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x446px

>>34442758
Yes it was.

>>34444122
holy shit thats a sword.

>>34446673
I will fight you, with a goddamn straight sword. And I'll kick your curved swords ass.

>>34436658
>And the only time the edge would be used is if both fighters were equally armed and skilled.

This depends entirely on context. When and where?

If you're talking late medieval Germany then there were certain expectations about the use of the edge versus the point.

File: 88sys.jpg (53KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x960px

Shamshirs

>>34446673
Used by
>inbred sandniggers
>culturally stagnant japs
>mongols
>peasants
>modern fops who usually let the common soldier with his gun and bayonet fight
vs used by
>romans
>knights and crusaders
>conquerors of the new world
>basically anyone who isn't either a coward or a dumbass

File: 1493944082757.jpg (40KB, 450x602px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 450x602px

>>34450952
clearly an expert on the matter

File: german long sword.jpg (52KB, 279x1270px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 279x1270px

>>34450975
you've never held an european long sword and a original nihonto, clearly. the nihonto feels like a piece of dead bar stock steel while the euro sword will, thanks to distal taper in both dimensions, be lively and responsive and let you pick the teeth of your kid without hurting them.

>>34450952
During the crusades, the saracens mostly used straight swords though...
Dussacks, curved swords and the likes were used as soon as the 14th century in Europe.
But this is a troll post so...

>>34451095
>But this is a troll post so...
You're not wrong.

Though, looking at the entirety of history, curved swords were more common for fighting between unarmored people, usually of lower class, lower training, etc.

Examples: peasant dussack/messer/falchion (that one was also used by knights though) among medieval peasants vs. mostly straight knigtly or military swords, or rapiers (which were weapons of a more wealthy urban population)

Curved sabres of gunpowder era hussars (considered to be of lower social status for a long time) vs. straight swords of cuirassiers

Curved cutlasses vs. straight epees and spadroons in a naval setting

Besides the point about fighting armor, there's also the fact that straight swords rely more on the thrust, which requires a bit more training; cutting effectively with one is also less easy. (I think matt easton made a video about the first point at least.)

Of course, all swords were used in a context of use cases, enemy, training etc. and most of those choosing a kind of sword did so for very good reason. If I point out that that straight swords were more common among high social classes, that doesn't make them better in any way except in the mind of someone who judges by association.

>>34443287
They get the dagger reputation despite being very practical.

>>34443255
And the slight help of probably more than 100000 non-atztec indigen allies.

>>34451168
>Though, looking at the entirety of history, curved swords were more common for fighting between unarmored people, usually of lower class, lower training, etc.
In medieval Europe maybe in the big picture, but curved sword were obviously used by the high-status warriors in Japan and the renaissance ottoman empire for instance, who both fought in quite heavy armor (though not so much with swords while in them).

>>34451274
Literally no reason for such a small sword.
Standard arming sword length is superior in every way
Shortswords are a meme of games and bad reenactors

File: Schweizerdegen_replica.jpg (102KB, 226x1400px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 226x1400px

>>34452447
They did exist, but they absolutely were tertiary weapons for extremely tight situations.

Pic related is a Swiss Degen, for when things got really hairy in a pike block. They carried longer swords too.

File: katzbalger-1.jpg (97KB, 802x600px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 802x600px

>>34452447
>Shortswords are a meme

>>34453626
>short

>>34453653
it's still quite shorter than comparative swords of that era. They aren't gladius sized sure, but they are still almost a ft shorter than a good deal of other swords of their time.
Same as with Type XIV for that matter.

>>34450986
>implying you've held either

File: 03.jpg (82KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x534px

>>34451168
>Curved sabres of gunpowder era hussars

depends on the hussars. Pic related is a Polish Hussar sabre - Polish Hussars were nowhere near "low status", with a single hussar horse costing the equivalent of 60 kg of silver (or 30 cannon, or 1000 matchlock muskets), and each hussar needed at least two horses for himself (and most likely for his two companions that he was required to arm and equip)

File: 20170126_173833.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

>>34455823

and the sabre

>>34436699
>>34449073
While it was a sidearm for many, it was also extensively used. The Greeks carried swords as a backup for when their spears broke. Very literally a sidearm. But that stage of combat when the spears broke was also the longest phase of Greek phalanx warfare, meaning those swords were getting used more than the spears that were the "main weapon". Not in line with a modern side arm at all. They were used extensively by the Celts as well as Thracians/Dacians, but Germans not so much (because they were quite literally too poor and not advanced enough to mass produce them)

Then we have two handed swords which were very much a main weapon, used by specialist troops all over Europe. Again, Thracians/Dacians, Celts, those guys loved these things. Later on into the middle ages they'd see a big resurgence when European infrastructure recovered from the fall of Rome and mass production became a thing again, indicating that limited use of the sword was not for practical reasons, but because they simply couldn't make enough of them affordably.

Oh right, what's that I mentioned that last paragraph? Rome. The most glaring fault with the 'swords were a sidearm' meme. Rome. Lasted nearly a thousand years if we start with the Republic and end with the Western Empire. Imitated by a hundred successors. The government of nearly every country on the planet is in some way inspired by Rome, at least in name. Even the least republican states on the planet try to latch on-DPRK, democratic people's REPUBLIC of Korea. And why is their influence so great, lasting more than a thousand years after the death of Rome (shut the fuck up byzaboos)? Because they conquered fucking everything. And the main weapon of their soldiers, not a sidearm in any way, used on the front-line of combat since before Rome emerged from the Italian peninsula, was the sword.

>>34456020
>>34436699
>>34449073

So yes, if you ignore the realities of ancient warfare where sidearms were used extensively in the most popular formations used to fight war such as the phalanx and shieldwall, exclusive use by specialist units all throughout history, and primary use by the single greatest nation of history, swords were a sidearm.

>>34441919
Would you be able to throw me a link to the research if possible?

File: Rhinelander and Raptor 1 (2).jpg (408KB, 1842x831px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1842x831px

>>34449749
Yeah I love it, very happy with it... I'm planning to order from Valiant Armoury again when I have the budget for another almost $700 toy.

File: Koncerz.jpg (19KB, 1024x304px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1024x304px

>>34455823
I can't believe a single horse costed as much a 30 cannons, when horses were much more common than cannons in every place and every era.

And Polish Hussars also used straight swords like the rapier-like Koncerz and the Palasz : http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/Koncerz.htm

>>34455823
Not the kind of hussar I meant indeed. Also no loose correlation without tons of exceptions.

>>34459853
Considering the ratio of cavalry and cannons in those battle, I think it likely a horse could have been a 30th of a cannon and still be expensive.

>>34459853
I never said they didn't (use the koncerz/pałasz).

As for horses - Hussar horses were a special breed, and it was forbidden (on pain of death) to sell them abroad.

And at the time the Hussars were at the height of their glory (early 17th century), Polish nobility was obscenely rich. There is a recorded instance of someone buying a horse for a sum that would get you a castle in France, with two nearby villages included.

And that's part of the reason the Polish Hussars were the best cavalry in the world at that time. When other nations were going "what? pay how much for one knight? I could have an entire unit of musketeers for that!", our guys were going "Sure, sign me up, and gear for my two buddies over here, on the house"

>>34455823
>1000 matchlocks
>for 1 (one) horse
what a meme

>>34461352
true story.

Polish Hussar horses were insanely expensive

>>34459853
>horses were much more common
>horses are all the same
I can't believe a single gun costed as much as 30 swords, when guns were much more common than swords in every place in this era

>>34459853
>>34461352
I'm not seeing how this is hard to believe.
A mediocre show horse is worth more than most upper middle end cars these days, and those horses are just for prancing around and racing. You had to teach those horses how to defend themselves and their rider how to steer from leg input of the rider and get the fear of charging into 100 screaming dudes out of them say they won't just stop mid charge.

>>34463324
except they werent.

>>34463525
these days because they arent very widely used, they are luxuries in the west. Most peasants who had horses had always had them, your car cant make more cars but your horse can.


A better indication would be to look at horse prices 120 years ago, when everyone used horses still

>>34463646
you mean when you would get fucking hung if you stole/shot some dudes horse because it was his lively hood and cost a shit ton of money?

>>34465045
Also were not talking about normal work horses which have always been relatively cheap, but war horses which is alot harder to train a horse to do than to train a horse to take a bit, or yoke.

Post sources about those horse prices. 30 guns or 1000 matchlocks for a horse simply doesn't make sense (or makes those poles pants-on-head retarded for wasting their money like that...)

>>34467120
Also, single occurences do not make average prices. Prized studs can cost obscene amounts and still do so today, but thats not indicative in any way.

>>34441163
In what fucking instance would you be able to carry around a massive sword and not be able to carry around a spear?

Find a big stick of a suitably strong wood and sharpen the shit out of it, use it as a walking stick while out and about in the wilderness and claim you sharpened it to pick up trash or to stab into the ground for better footing and shit if questioned.

>>34441163
Crossbows

>>34467120
Polish historians claim that hussar horses (which had to be minimum 7 years old to be fully grown, which drove up the prices) would cost 3 and 70 kg of silver. Not all were so expensive, but for one horse it's still an absurd amount of money.
I wouldn't say they were pants-on-head retarded, but they were obscenely rich and could afford to spend such money.

by comparison, a ton of wheat would cost around 130 grams of silver. A regular horse around 400 grams.
The hussar's armor was around 690 grams of silver, the leopard skins varied wildly from 130 grams, to 350 grams for a tiger, to 1900 grams for a cheetah.

So the cost of equipment for a hussar was an average 50kg of silver, and the hussar was paid about 400-500 for 3 months of service - peanuts compared to what they made from their estates.

A teacher would make over 800 grams of silver a week, a bricklayer - about 4.5 grams a day (yes - teachers were paid a shitload of money - we're not talking today's high school teachers - more like employing a harvard provessor as a private tutor for your kid).

>>34468543
and that wasn't even the most badass cavalry we ever had - that honor goes to the elears: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisowczycy

>>34440151
Good plate would be extremely effective against slashes. You'd get more stab wounds on guys killed while wearing armor, since a sword-wielder would need to punch through chinks in the armor rather than chopping stuff off.

>>34442855
Cavalry DID use armor. At least for a while. As guns gained more effectiveness at range, they started trading plates for speed.

Look up cuirassiers.

>>34468543
>and the hussar was paid about 400-500 for 3 months of service

that's 400-500 grams of silver.

>>34468607
>>34442855
Heavy cavalry kept using armor up until the 19th century, it wasn't that super serious after the Napoleonic wars but well...

>>34443363
>implying XVI isn't best girl

>>34436658
Yes, but against armored opponents you'd use something like half-swording or mordhau

>>34440482
but that's wrong

the Messer was a loophole so knife-making guilds in Germany could produce swords and get away with it. That's why it has a knife-style handguard.

>>34455823

is seriously hope you dont charge this

>>34469333

fucking commiewestburgaphalia's

>>34469333
>the Messer was a loophole so knife-making guilds in Germany could produce swords and get away with it.
Source please! Let me guess, you don't have one, just posting unfounded shit you heard somewhere else?

>>34469333
I'd be more inclined to believe it had something to do with a law that forbade non-knighted people from using swords.

>>34469672
Again, got any sources on tha imaginary law of yours? No? then shut the fuck up with your speculations!

>>34469672
noooo, I was just commenting, that it would seem more plausible at least if there was such a law.

Calm thine tits, squire.

>>34469841
meant to reply to >>34469777

>>34469672
From what I understand such laws were exceedingly rare if not non-existent.
Meanwhile guilds having a monopoly on producing shit seems to have been a common thing, finding loopholes would've been profitable.

Or, it could just be aesthetic preference.