Swords are fucking useless why would anyone pick them?

>>50121969
Most swords are just Strength Damage 3, but other than that you can add whatever you want to it and power effects are a lot cheaper when you have Easily Removable.

>>50121969
Pole axe master race.

File: edcbc78db8fab4a41bb5b68409ce6056.jpg (184KB, 334x714px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 334x714px

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO de

They're certainly the most reliable Power Weapon. Mauls have greater power, Lances are situational, and Axes strike at I1, so Power Swords are generally the go-to against MEQ and the like for higher-initiative units so they can land the killing blow before an opponent can strike back.

>>50121969
That sweet, sweet +3 proficiency bonus. Accuracy is king.

>Not using sickles
Tryhard casuals

>>50121969
I'm really mad you didn't say pointless. WE COULD HAVE MADE SO MANY SHITTY JOKES

File: 1468616084227.png (90KB, 238x276px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 238x276px

>not using flails

What specific context are you asking about?

They're popular because of 'muh chivalrous combat and popular depictions like Lord of the Rings and Game of thrones. As far as a go-to weapon goes, polearms are probably a better starting point.
Within games, people choose swords because (in most cases) a system is built assuming that these should be viable combat options.

File: 1454935265366.png (52KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x501px

>>50121969

>>50121969
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdx8kNo_ouA
#unclematt #truth #opisfaggot #opgotrekt

>>50121969
Style

stop making these threads please

File: quest for glory so you've become a hero.jpg (78KB, 960x600px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 960x600px

They make me feel like a hero

>>50121969
Because they're the "cool guy" weapons that people take just for the style. A real man carries a mace.

>>50121969
>Murderhobo
>Never sure when you'll be accosted
>Combat in cramped tunnels, woodlands, open fields, inns, castles, tombs
>Combat with ambush predators and gelatinous cuddlebeasts
>spare carry capacity used for gold coins
>Mark of rank keeps podunk mayors from fucking with you
Good luck with your halberd, cockarse.

>>50123904
Gotta have something to replace all the threads they kicked people off of /tg/ for.

>>50121969
A better question is how many of these retarded threads are you going to make before you realize how much of a cockmongling faggot you are?

>>50127529

I'll take Quests back if it means we never have these threads again.

File: smug knightly frog.jpg (60KB, 600x463px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x463px

>quoth the serf

>>50127569
>he thinks knights used swords as a main weapon
Kek

>>50122102
I flail to see your point

>>50127559
we'll always have these threads, quests or no quests

>>50127749
They did.

>>50121969
Swords are secondary weapons like handguns. They are easy and comfy to carry, but most job will be done using a primary weapon (polearm, spear, pike, bow, crossbow...).

>>50127749
>nowhere is it implied
Kek

File: 1458593970979.jpg (73KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x368px

>>50121969
True.
I have yet to find a situation that can't be resolved via liberal use of explosives.
I don't even know why other weapons exist.

>>50127749
They didn't, but they did use them for killing peasants. Turns out swords are really good for killing unarmoured plebs with no shield.

/tg/ logic
>swords were just sidearms lmao
>b-but axes were totally different!

>>50122384
>that
>a rapier
That is clearly a broadsword.

>>50127931
With a hilt like that?

>>50127958
>he hasn't heard of basket-hilted broadswords

>>50127973
That's why I was asking.

>>50127931
What makes it not a rapier?

>>50127958
>>50127979
Why are you asking if you know about basket-hilted broadswords?

>>50127979
Scottish claymores are basket hilted boradswords.

>>50127995
broad blade you stupid americunt

>>50127995
The width of the blade.

>>50122055
>They're certainly the most reliable Power Weapon. Mauls have greater power, Lances are situational, and Axes strike at I1, so Power Swords are generally the go-to against MEQ and the like for higher-initiative units so they can land the killing blow before an opponent can strike back.
>what are lightning claws

>>50128005
Wrong guess.
I'm just saying because historical rapiers were not always thin ass fencing rapiers they are now, might as well be a rapier.

>>50121969
>m-muh realism
fuck off

>>50128013
a poor substitute for TH&SS

>>50122097
this

>>50127908
Have fun opening tin cans with your bombs.

>>50128003
depending on context

>>50128005
>>50128011
Pretty sure a BROADsword would be more than an inch across.

>>50128120
What's so unrealistic about swords again?

>>50121969
They're easy to carry around.

>>50128153
>he doesn't know that "swords" are a modern invention dated from the late XIXth century and that they existed only in the fevered imagination of romanticism-deluded victorian and their respectives european ilk...

>>50121969

> Universally accepted as the weapon of the professional pre-gunpowder soldier
> Useless

I bet you think pistols outclass rifles too anon

>>50127931
it's called sidesword not broadsword u uneducated cunt
the only early-modern weapon called broadsword is the scottish one.

>>50128342
But in this analogy the sword is the pistol, it is so commonly used because it's everone second weapon.

>>50128342
>What is the spear

>>50121969
This fucking thread again? Really?
FFS you're not even trying anymore.
0/10

File: wehavethisthreadeveryday.jpg (37KB, 396x382px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 396x382px

>>50121969

>>50127819
>being this uniformed
w e w
>>50128002
>>50127973
>>50127931
That is clearly not a basket hilted broadsword you dumb fuck, it's even got the correct basket for fingering the guard, which was NOT possible with a claymore. Claymore basket hilts were like a cage around the hand, not fancy twisted metal.

>>50128151
You would expect so, but broadsword was a relative term to the other swords of the period and place, and so they were seen as "broad" in comparison.

>>50128342
>> Universally accepted as the weapon of the professional pre-gunpowder soldier
By who? Fucking morons? The sword has not been the primary weapon of a professional soldiers since long, long before the widespread use of gunpowder.

>>50128576
what was knight's main weapon then?
>inb4 lance

good luck with using that more than once per charge

>>50121969
>Fighting armoured enemy
Fucking garbage tier
>Fighting anyone else
One of the best weapons possible
>Fighting in harsh terrain
Best non-range weapon around

So I would say - it depends.
But then again, I usually use ranged weapons, regardless of game, so... yeah

File: 1FSs3N2.gif (5MB, 250x189px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 250x189px

>>50127931
>Being this tier retarded
>Speaking up anyway

>>50128588
>>50128151
>>50128005
"Broadsword" started being used mainly in the second half of the 17th century, in opposition to smallsword. Seeing how thin a smallsword's blade is, a broadsword could well be just as "broad" as a typical arming sword, maybe less so than broader types (Oakeshott type XIV for instance).

>>50128609
>Knight weapon
Depends on the country, time period, current trends and season of the year, you stupid cunt.

But here is a clue - most of the time it won't be a sword.
And another clue - you carry spare lances and horses with yourself, that's what your squire/horse comrade is for. If you know just about anything about cavalry, you wouldn't sprout ininformed bullshit

>>50128139
Is that a challenge?

Take this shit to >>>/his/ please

>>50128648
I bet longswords were used by them for the lolz right? Clearly this two handed weapon was a sidearm.

>>50128609
>lance
Correct, that is a primary and important weapon of the knight, which saw far more use than his side arm. Battle Lances weren't tourney lances, they didn't snap in one use.
And if they were dismounted or fought on foot, they would use a polearm of some description, such as a poleax.

File: roman sword greentext.png (142KB, 1395x682px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1395x682px

>>50121969
Because the Romans used them, the Romans were the best, therefore swords are best.

>>50128621
A spear is STILL far superior to a sword in an unarmoured fight since it keeps your enemy at range and you therefore safe to stab at the cunt with a shitty short range sword.

File: knight.jpg (10KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 275x183px

>>50128685
>muh axes xD

no

>>50128688
>people STILL think the Romans didn't make massive use of the spear
What is the pilum?
That said, the Romans were the last major civilisation to make swords a primary weapon of their army, and it was only good because of their superior tactics and use alongside a massive shield and several dozen mates, making its inherent safety disadvantage moot.

>>50128706
>he thinks that halberds, poleaxes and danish axes were all memes when they have distinct and massive advantages in both penetrating armour and being longer than a sword

Good luck crashing through armour with a sword. Good luck getting close to someone wielding a polearm with a sword

While the long axe in its many forms are not a great pleb infantry weapon (other polearms fill that spot) it is the superior dismounted knightly weapon due to its ability to actually hurt people in armour.

>>50121969
Because Jedi don't use fucking lighthalberds, retard.

>>50128740
>Good luck crashing through armour with a sword

exactly no one fucking tried to ''crash through armor'' you imbecile that's why half swording was invented and I even posted an example. Kill yourself americunt.

>>50128718
>What is the pilum?
A throwing weapon which was almost completely unsuitable for close combat due to inherent and deliberate flaws in its design. Pila designed for melee were the exception, not the rule.

>>50128767
>he thinks half swording is better than just using a polearm

Well that's certainly an interesting opinion.

As is the one where you call me an Americunt when I spelt armour with a "u"

Perhaps you should learn how to read and pay attention, and then you'll realise why no retard would choose to use a subpar battle weapon, even if it can be used in a way that makes it even more short range in exchange for being able to do what a polearm already can.

>>50128772
I know, I even said that the Romans used the sword as a primary weapon in that post. I just wonder why so many people seem to think they never used a spear or spear type weapon when it was an important part of their military tactic.

File: basket_hilt_on_rapier.jpg (7KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 275x183px

>/tg/ thinks rapiers are fucking needles thinner than your finger

>>50128800
Yeah let's pretend no one ever used longswords right? After all they were completly useless compared to the might of an axe which is why axes were phased out the moment plate armor got popular yet swords were still used.

>>50128697
Spear, unless you are really, really, REALLY well-trained in using it, can be effortlessly overcome by any person carrying a much shorter weapon, be it sword, axe or mace. So unless you are facing complete idiots with zero training or you yourself are literal master of spear, they will fucking kill you, using your reach against you.

>>50128669
>Longswords
The only period where they were really used by anyone was High Medieval. And guess how effective they had to be if nobody was using them mare century later, while both other type of swords flourished and new "main" weapons became popular.

But hey, longsword mustardrace, right?

>>50128845
>Poleaxes were phased out when plate armor got popular
Except that it's completely the opposite but well...

>>50128767
>Halfswording

Now THAT is a meme. Please, explain us this logic
"Here am I to face a dude fully clad in armour. I shall bring the best weapon to kill him... right, a sword, which is useless, will definitely do, if I start using the hilt to hit the guy in that huge amount of metal, while he's busy pounding my ass with that poleaxe"

Maybe it never occured to you, but people use most effective weapon for killing and not randomly picked shit. If swords were so good, why the fuck nobody used them in actual combat as anything else than SIDEARM

>>50128918
Longsword didn't exist during the High middle-ages, they are a late 13th, early 14th century weapons to Late Medieval, not Crusader era.

>>50128845
>axes got phased out the moment plate armour got popular
Right, because no one used the poleax or halberd at that time, did they?

And the primary weapon of soldiers at the time of full gothic plate was the pike for fuck's sake, that's no sword.

>>50121969
Style points

>>50128845
But nobody used it, you bloody idiot. It was picked around late 12th century, experimented for another 100-120 years and then everyone realised it's fucking ineffective against dudes fully clad in metal, since you have slashing weapon against someone who won't be harmed by slashes and stabbing weapon against someone who can't be stabbed.

So sure, let's pretend longswords were anything else than a blind alley and totally weren't dropped due to their inefficiency, cost and other insignificant factors like being useless ceremonial weapon by the times it became finally cost-efficient to make them en masse

>>50128947
>Here am I to face a dude fully clad in armour. I shall bring the best weapon to kill him...

Maybe you killed 100 unarmoured peasants before coming up against the armoured nobleman?

>>50128936
>completly opposite

really? So the fact that swords got more needdle like blades to thrust through gaps better was made up and all 14th century swords were fake? And soldiers magically forgot about axes?

>>50128947
Being a sidearm doesn't mean it's a bad weapon, just that you can have it in conjunction with another weapon, you don't choose between poleaxe and longsword, you bring and train both.

"Friendly" duels in full armour with longswords were pretty popular during the 15th century btw, go check Jacques de Lalaing's geste, this guy duelled with both longsword and poleaxe regularly.

>>50128959
One handed axes disappeared almost completly and if you wanna consider halberd an axe then might as well say swords weren't sidearms because of zweihander.

>>50128957
Not him, but what difference does it make? You yourself just pointed out they fell out of favour pretty quick for "super-duper weapon" that supposedly was so fucking great, that everyone quickly stopped using it.

I guess it might have something to do with everyone and their mother wearing metal armour no sword could pierce or slash through, but hey, what do I know, I'm just a fa/tg/uy.

>>50128906
>just get inside their reach
When will this meme die? How do you intend to dodge the multiple fast and deadly thrusts to the head and chest that the spear user is throwing out as he steps backward with each thrust? Unarmed, a single thrust is enough to kill a man dead, and they're not throwing out one thrust at a time - they're keeping you at distance and picking you apart faster than you can block.

With a longsword, it's possible. With a rapier and dagger, it's almost fair (the rapier and dagger being the best duelling weapons)
With a mace? Fucking forget it, your weapon is too short and you cannot block their attacks effectively.

>>50128718
The pilum is a throwing weapon you tosser

Not only that, it's a throwing weapon designed to break easily so it can't be re-used against the thrower.

>>50128978
Are you fucking retarded?
No, seriously, are you?

Longswords came into use in late 13th century, fully becoming a thing in the middle of 14th century. You know what else became a thing in that period?
Entire armies clad in plate armour.

So nice to know you have no idea what the fuck you are even talking about, because longswords have this unfortunate luck of being invented in the same time when your average foot soldier was perfectly capable of affording his own plate.

>>50128986
I have been talking specifically about long axes the entire time. And you're correct, a zweihander was a good weapon - because it was long enough to basically be a polearm.

>>50128947
>sword, which is useless

if it was useless no one would buy them anymore you cretin and if half swording meant to deal with armor existed how the fuck would that mean swords were useless against armor you idiot?

>>50129017
Except plate armour was most popular in the late 15th and early 16th centuries

>>50128993
>How do you intend to dodge
Ever heard about shields?
I guess not

Because that's how you overcome all sorts of pikes and spears, you fucking idiot. It was a thing back in antique times, it was a thing in medieval and it was a thing in early modern period - you bring a shield. You don't dodge. You simply make it impossible to stab you, while you charge.

Dunno, read just about any late medieval or early modern treaty about military. They all will tell you the same fucking thing - bring swordsmen with shields and enemy pikemen are fucking screwed.
What? A historical meme?

>>50128981
You really think the needle like swords were used as battle weapons and not as duelling or self defense?

>>50129035
>I have no idea what 15th and 16th century means

>>50128993
>Hey, this guy is tryign to stab us
>Let's come open at him and try to out-reach his polearm with a fucking sword!

You are actively making your case worse.

>>50129037
Huh, weird how no one made an army of men with shields and swords when pike squares were a thing then.

>>50129035
And here we've got an American, who has no idea how centuries work. Let me guess - 2000 was the first year of new millenium, right?

>>50129048
So how do they intend to get close if they can't get in his reach, considering we were talking unarmoured.

File: 9096726.jpg (26KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x462px

>>50129059
>no one made an army of men with shields and swords when pike squares were a thing then
What is Spanish Tercio? The type of unit able to pretty much curb-stomp everyone on their way up until 30 years war, where guns simply advanced enough to render melee combat redundant?

>>50125437
>504 out of 500
Heroes don't cheat.

>>50129060
>14th and 15th centuries are the same
Well it's news to me lads :^)

>>50129059
Nice knowing you never heard about Italian Wars and how Spaniards won them.

>>50129074
B-but tercios used pikes and guns, what are you talking about?

>>50129044
considering medieval manuals describing their use against armored opponent? Yeah.

>>50129093
Could you please specify exactly which needle line sword you're talking about? Because tbqh I was clearly thinking of a different sort.

>>50129091
I'm talking an unit of 3000 soldiers, with about roughtly 2400 guys with swords covered by equal part of pikemen and arquebusiers and handful of guns.
But hey, polearm mustard race, right?

>>50129093
[Citation needed]

>>50129091
>>50129087
>>50129074
Ah, I see. Are you talking about the small number of swordsmen at the front rank of the square? Because I would hesitate to call those specialist soldiers the primary soldiers, but I can certainly see where you are coming from.

File: 8db3c7f7ca0fc7f59b90532126292c0c.jpg (19KB, 236x351px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 236x351px

>>50129137
dumb amerinigger lmao you wanna teach me about history? You stupid inbred fat fucks don't even know the difference between ancient times and middle ages, you downies think medieval warfare was like in LOTR with two sides just charging at each other mindlessly, you walking pro abortion advertisements, you fucking stupid cunts.

File: af11dbed403476ee153c6a4c82ab23cb.jpg (12KB, 736x530px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 736x530px

>>50129116

File: Everyone.gif (2MB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x370px

>>50121969
COME ON EVERYONE

GIVE ME A D
GIVE ME AN E
GIVE ME A P
GIVE ME ANOTHER E
NOW GIVE ME AN N
GIVE ME THE D
GIVE ME AN S

D-E-P-E-N-D-S!

GIVE ME AN O
GIVE ME AN N

DEPENDS ON...!

GIVE ME A T
GIVE ME AN H
GIVE ME AN E

DEPENDSSSS OOOOONNNNN THEEEEE...

GIVE ME AN S
GIVE ME AN E
GIVE ME A T
NOW, ANOTHER T
GIVE ME AN I
GIVE ME AN N
GIVE ME A G

SETTING!!!

DEPENDS!
ON!
THE!
SETTING!

D-E-P-E-N-D-S O-N T-H-E S-E-T-T-I-N-G

IT DEPENDS ON THE FUCKING SETTING, YOU DAMNABLE FUCKING SHITPOSTING MONGOLOID ASS MUNCHING TRAINWRECK OF AN AUTIST.

>>50129205
Those don't look like needles to me...

>>50129238
Way thinner blade than swords used to have. Also stop moving the fucking goalposts
>hurr swords were never used against armor xD
>they were
>hurr they are not literal needles xD

americans are such stupid fucking pieces of shit no wonder you are getting killed by niggers in your own homes like in some african war torn shithole yet still believe you live in the first world also look at your IQ

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

literally third world tier

>>50129017
He literally said unarmored peasants. That means everyone but one guy has no armor in his example.

>>50129205
>calls people dumb
>believes the half sword meme

>>50129127
A tercio formation was not 2400 men with swords, it was a third of each (ideally) and quickly became mostly pikes and guns.

>>50129268
How was it a meme?

>>50129251
More than one person respond to you you know? No need to go as full retard as the americans you portray in your oh-so-nicely constructed posts.

Also you can't even read the data you give us apparently.

>>50121969
Because they're light and versatile. Sure, your primary weapons is going to be a lance if you're on horseback or some type of pole weapon if you're on foot but you'd have to be a retard not to carry a sword as well. Having a secondary weapon is pretty useful in general not to mention that most your opponents probably won't be wearing too much armor anyway since shit like that was expensive.

>>50129288
Half-swording is an effective technique, for sure. But it wasn't great, other weapons did the things it did much better and it's pretty janky. However, it is effective and one of the reasons the sword became the primary sidearm of any competent soldier - the longsword was called the queen of weapons for a reason - it was never bad, just sub-par.

But desu I was mostly insulting that raging moron with a hateboner for americans.

File: 15408311395410ac8fbc53c-378895-wm.jpg (226KB, 640x936px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 640x936px

>s-swords were never used!

>>50129332
>I'm losing the argument, so I'll make up something no one said to try make them all look dumb

Kek, weak bait.

>>50121969
No they're not don't be silly.

File: depends on the archive.jpg (190KB, 1400x1250px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1400x1250px

>>50128947
>I start using the hilt to hit the guy in that huge amount of metal
that's called a murderstrike, you incoherent pleb
halfswording is gripping the blade to use it as a more effective thrusting weapon

learn even half your shit before you shitpost about it

>>50129219
they just get even more butthurt at that and start shitposting harder
pic related

>>50129359
read the thread

>>50130258
It's not just to make it better at stabbing, Anon. Half-swording was also effective for using the pommel as a bludgeon.

File: FB_IMG_1468473483333.jpg (42KB, 500x640px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x640px

>>50128993
>Spears make me fast like naruto!

Why would you say such a stupid thing? As somebody who's actually done this in sparring with somebody trained in using a spear, let's see the look on your face when your fat ass slowly thrusts a spear at me only armed with a sword in one hand grabs the shaft of your spear and jerk you towards me. Since your arms are already extended by the thrust you're coming to me and my sword. This can be pulled off fairly easy by someone who knows what they're doing. It won't always work but since a sword is basically a line it's remarkably easy to block the spear. And you can damage the shaft. Break it off and the enemy has a neat stick. But you probably think all spearmen were expert level quarter staff users right? They gonna darth maul me? K then.

>>50128749
>Jedi don't use fucking lighthalberds
Some actually do in the old EU. They appear in you were considering it for a moment, didn't you?

fuck, this thread is such pure autism
swords obviously had their merits, as did spears and axes, or else one of them would have quickly gotten out of use
an axe or mace was always better against armor than halfswording, which was only good for when you didn't have an anti-armor weapon or couldn't draw it fast enough

>>50131149
B-but muh [insert favourite weapon]

>>50131149
Spears, axes and swords were all shit.

Crossbows were the master race.

>>50130510
If we're going to talk about personal experience here, I have 3 years of experience with sparring with a long stick both against another long stick and other weapons, including broadsword, broadsword and dagger, broadsword and shield, longsword, rapier and dagger and smallsword and you'll never guess what? The stupid fucks who try to grab the staff get hit 9 times out of 10. Sure it CAN work but you're at an inherent disadvantage, and that's assuming the person with said stick isn't feinting. If they are, the person with the sword has less than a second to block the attack, which could come high, low, left or right at speed, while they only have a foot or two of distance between them and their weapon.

>this can be pulled off fairly easy
It really, really can't. Either you're "fast like naruto" or the fucktard you were sparring was a complete fucking mong. How do you intend to one handed yank a person towards you who is either planted fully on the ground or taking a step back, assuming you even manage to grab the damn thing?

Fuck, armchair fighters like you make me pissed. The spear was a piss-easy to learn weapon, and had massive advantages in range over a great number of other weapons, let alone a fucking unarmoured pleb with a sword and a hand free to "grab the shaft" You dumb fuck, a thrust isn't slow, and it isn't fucking predictable.

>>50131149
>an axe or mace was always better against armor than halfswording

So do we have any historical sources claiming this? Or is it just the usual stinking "everyone knows" bullshit?

>>50131356
>one is designed to do this
>the other can be used in an unorthodox fashion to do this
Off the top of my head, that's one good reason, but personally I'm not sure.

>>50131231
Missile/ranged weapons a best.

>>50131309

>3 years experience

Oh look, it's someone with literally as much credibility as anyone else in this thread

Actual fencers spend that much time preparing to pick up an epee, not just flailing uselessly with a stick

>>50131385
In 13th century swords were often used in knight vs knight combat now they didn't have plate back then but they were still armored so it's not like swords are completly incapable of killing anyone wearing more than a t-shirt.

>>50131385
>one is designed to do this

So do we have any historical sources claiming this? Or is it just the usual stinking "everyone knows" bullshit?

>the other can be used in an unorthodox fashion to do this

Unorthodox to the guy who'd be doing it, or just to modern day guys who haven't done their homework?

File: Opinel.jpg (2MB, 2200x1391px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2200x1391px

>>50131231
Knife master race.
What? When was the last time you needed a sword or a spear? I need a knife all the time.
Knife > All

>>50131231
>The first weapon to get killed off by guns was master race
Sure thing

>>50131408
>sport fencing
>relevant in a conversation about real combat
kek

And how much experience do you have training with a spear lad?

>>50131422
Aye, it's certainly true. I've never been arguing swords are useless- they weren't called the Queen of Weapons for nothing. Useful in every situation, perfect in very few.

>>50131426
Are you seriously trying to tell me you don't believe a mace was designed to hurt people in armour?

>>50131469
I wonder why crossbows were used more than bows.

>>50128604
He never said 'primary'. Every archer, billman, gunner, crossbowman or pikeman is also carrying a sword.

Its an effective weapon and only idiots think otherwise.,

>>50121969
Portable
Versatile
Best weapon for unarmored fighting

>>50131478
Because indirect fire is something best left to artillery; I'm not saying bows were superior.

>>50131486
To be fair to that anon, he said "the weapon", which certainly implies it was the primary one.

>>50131408
>not just flailing uselessly with a stick
Ever seen a sabre match?

>>50131507
He's saying crossbows filled the same niche as guns, only guns filled it better, I think.

File: wasteland_style.gif (493KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 600x338px

>ITT: Pseudointellectuals with no actual knowledge of history besides a quick search on wikipedia before posting discuss weapons

Every time I think this site has already reached an all-time low, it surprises me yet again
How can so many people be so wrong in so many different ways all in the same thread?

>>50131474
>Are you seriously trying to tell me you don't believe a mace was designed to hurt people in armour?

I don't know what to believe there. It's an unknown. That's why I'd like to hear about it from the guys who made them, or used them, or at least a contemporary who watched it all. I'm not happy to just accept something everyone know today just because everyone knows it, because such knowledge has an unfortunate tendency of turning out to be wrong once you get your hands on some actual evidence.

So, do you have some actual evidence that some or all of maces in this or that period were specifically made to deal with armor? That there was some sort of consensus at the time that they were superior for that? Or are we just going to get unfounded speculation and armchair musings presented as something that is a known fact?

If you have the evidence, present it. If you don't, then realise that you don't know and stop perpetuating bullshit.

>>50127931
Spot the britbong (literally only brits make the pedantic distinction)

File: basket-hilt-broadswords-710.jpg (43KB, 710x367px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 710x367px

>>50131575
As a brit, he's not a brit, he's a fucking moron because it looks nothing like the british broadsword.

>>50131575
>pedantic

They are two entirely different types of sword that do not look alike, do you think its pedantic to know a dog is not a fox?

>>50131478
In a siege, rate of fire matters little. You have something sturdy to hide behind as you reload, and a finite supply of ammo that you need to make count. Ease of aiming becomes a really major issue, and modern guns haven't ended up with ergonomics more akin to crossbows than bows just due to fashion.

Then as you take to the battlefield you won't have any of your noble vassals show up with missile weapons, and mass conscription of peasants means no one tends to the fields that are the basis for your wealth and power. So you hire mercenaries. Those mercenaries will usually be ex city militia, and for that reason somewhat specialised in defensive siege actions. Meaning they love crossbows, or guns if we're getting a bit into the 15th century. Bowmen on the other hand simply won't be an option, there's none to hire unless you happen to be British.

>>50131629
Any and all knowledge that he does not posses is pedantic.

Lacking any knowledge he has makes you a retard.

Hot damn this thread is nothing but vitriol and shit.

>>50131719
That's what you get when you talk about swords

>>50131629
I think unless it's the size of a fucking Schiavona, yes it's pedantic. They were just called swords/rapiers/varja on the mainland by the armies that mattered, which the english of the 17th century did not.

>>50131662
Mercenary archers were a thing and Hawkwood realized real fast that fighting like in the 100 years war expecting the commanders in front to be as hotheaded as french nobles was a stupid gamble.

The whole "muh lifetime of training folded a million times over" thing is bullshit.

>>50131739
Its a bit weird how some people massively over react and declare swords were just shit.

Also the whole 'muh noble status symbol' crap as if nobody else ever carried one.

>>50131766
You have no idea what you're talking about, the rapier and the basket hilted broadsword were used in totally different ways and in totally different contexts. How the fuck do you intend to finger the guard with a basket hilted broadsword you fuck? The rapier was a duelling weapon and civilian arm, and the basket hilted broadsword was the melee weapon of choice of the Jacobean Scottish rebels and their absurd highland charge.

>>50131816
The rapier was a military weapon fielded as both a sidearm and a primary weapon by the Swedes, the French and the Spanish you dumbshit Silver-poisoned bong. It was a cut and thrust sword until it was largely phased out for the pure thrusting smallsword, which was a purely ceremonial/dueling sword.

>>50131766
What are you not understanding here, a rapier and a broadsword are fundamentally different weapons used in different ways and in different contexts. They also existed in periods that did not fully overlap.

You would have to be an anti-intellectual idiot to insist they are basically the same thing. And a Schiavona is a pretty typical broadsword, why are you acting like its unusually large?

>>50131766
>>50131838
Also who cares if they just called it a 'sword', most people did that. A Gladius is just a 'sword'. We still need a way today to differentiate the huge variety of different weapons used that were all called a sword in their own context.

Especially when they are as radically different from each other as the rapier and the broadsword.

>>50131838
Does that change that it was a fundamentally different weapon than the broadsword you dumb fuck?

>>50131783
Honestly, the same thing happens in axes/spears/polearms were shit and never used threads. I think the only weapon that can really be called into question was the flail, and I fucking love flails.

>>50128651
Not really. I've done this IRL with the seismic guys for shits and giggles.

So much wasted daet cord. So much fun.

>>50132288
How can the undisputed king of peasant revolts be called into question? The flail was clearly a medieval tool and its use as an improvised or militia weapon has been clearly documented.

Unless we're talking about the victorian inventions.

>>50131766
Schiavonas are not of any special size, and a British baskethilt isn't something you'd call a värja.

The words simply don't mean what you think they mean. Accept that and move on, or keep showing everyone around that you don't know a fraction of what you think you know.

>>50132324
>How can the undisputed king of peasant revolts be called into question?

Around here that was crossbow, spear, morgenstern, various old halberd forms and greatswords. Depending on which rebellion exactly. Maybe it was different elsewhere, war scythes seem to have enjoyed popularity in places, or the king might have been crowned considerably later than the rebellions took place. (Not that it didn't see use, only the royalty is in question here.)

>>50128947
and what weapon exactly would work against said armored opponent?

>>50132446
I was joking around, the flail might not have been the most used, but, to me at least it seems to be the most peasant of all weapons - a shitty agricultural tool anyone could pick up and use.

In real life, a shit old sword could be picked up (in Britain at least) fairly easily for centuries. They were poor quality, usually, but could be bought for about a day's wages, if not less. And the quarterstaff was the biggest murder weapon in England for like 300 years, so real weapons were the principle weapons of a peasant revolt.

>>50132660
>the flail might not have been the most used, but, to me at least it seems to be the most peasant of all weapons
anon, some people question if it was even used in any battleground, or by anyone. It is literally "fantasy - the weapon"

File: 800px-Arte_De_Athletica_2b.jpg (90KB, 800x547px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 800x547px

>>50132899
We're talking about
>pic related
flail, right?

Why do people think it isn't a real weapon? Several contemporary Fechtbücher literally explain how to use it.

File: Weapon_select_flail.png (99KB, 490x374px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 490x374px

>>50132968
People mean this flail.

File: 1477941057288.gif (3MB, 414x420px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 414x420px

>>50121969
People like you are the reason why I had to lug around a fucking smaw AND a fucking rifle at the same time.

File: image.jpg (30KB, 367x500px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 367x500px

>>50121969
> Yeah katanas are far superior to such a brutish weapon...

>>50133032
A number of which are still around.

It was probably a pretty rare weapon. But not non-existent.

>>50133253
Yes a number of 19th century fakes.

File: 1478054487046.jpg (29KB, 680x681px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 680x681px

>>50121969
In a medieval society swords were the only weapon effective enough when fighting an armored opponent. A mace, warhammer or maul, while it can do damage, is slow and can easily be blocked. A sword can be used to stab exposed cracks in the armor.

Additionally, swords were and continue to be the greatest status symbol of wealth. Anybody with a sword on their hip is seen as dangerous, disciplined and extremely well-trained. Anybody that tried to oppose them would be killed with ease.

Swords are the only worthwhile weapon in any fantasy setting. Anybody that uses anything else would be killed by actual sword users in seconds. It's just a fact.

>>50133469
>uses a bait image
>is posting bait himself
pottery

>>50133308
There are extant examples older than that by hundreds of years, and they also appear in period artwork. They definitely existed, we just don't know how common they were.

For typical RPG situations swords are the best option a lot of the time. If you are travelling a lot you probably aren't carrying a pike or halberd, you also can't use these things indoors or in a dungeon easily.

A regular old spear is fine outdoors and can be used as a walking staff/poking stick well enough but swords are ideal for people who want a versatile weapon on them at all times which is better than a knife.

File: Submachine gun basically a UMP but futuristic.jpg (261KB, 1400x893px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1400x893px

I don't get you people.

Every weapon system, throughout history, has its flaws and advantages. Even if swords are not 'as good' as a polearm, they were still used, and therefore they must not have been complete shit.

Additionally; please remind yourself that;
>Things that aren't that good are still because people don't always 100% know the best way to do things
>Style and culture influence people's weapons and armor as much as their effectiveness does
>Something doesn't have to be 100% effective to be useful

>>50132968

>using PHM as proof of anything

The guy got hanged for having his book printed, that should tell you enough of what people thought of his bullshit.

>>50127917
what are
> mordhau
> half swording
> pommels
> end him rightly

>>50133995

>what are
>>pommels

Pommels are for throwing, obviously

>>50133995
Three memes and a counterpoint.

>>50134019
> he got the end him rightly meme
ayyy

>>50134221
no.

>>50132446
Foreign people shoulden't use värja imo because the word has many meanings and adding a prefix to the word narrows it down but most people don't know these.

File: enough.jpg (30KB, 272x395px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 272x395px

>>50128210
You're a fucking fag.

>>50128210
The sad thing is if that quote was spammed often enough people would believe it just like they believe in a lot of retarded historical ''revelations''.

>>50128342
Even assuming the sword is the secondary weapon, it is far more useful and important relative to the spear or bow compared to how useful a pistol is compared to the modern rifle. Pole arms, bows, and primitive guns are nowhere near as flexible and all purpose as a rifle is today, so having a jack of all trades sidearm makes sense.

>>50131478
Because they were easier to use and packed more of a punch.
The only people in Yuroop with access to a decent pool of archers were the English but they phased out the longbow by the 16th century.

File: 1477832828295.jpg (39KB, 720x680px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 720x680px

>>50121969
because guns don't exist in the setting and magic is rare/useless on it own? what were you expecting again?

File: 1395974252556.png (16KB, 250x391px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 250x391px

>>50121969
Hector get off the computer.

>>50133232
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGbE0L2zWbc

File: 6e8.jpg (20KB, 960x422px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 960x422px

Jesus Christ, this entire thread...

>>50128013

Technically not under the banner of the generic "Power Weapon," but a separate entry unto themselves like Thunder Hammers. A unit that can take a Power Weapon can't choose Lightning Claws as that option, but have to have a Lightning Claw option in order to get it.

Hence why Power Fists and Thunder Hammers also weren't mentioned, but simply the weapons that are selectable under the Power Weapon option of a unit entry. From that alone I figured you'd be able to work out the context.

>>50133718
A big issue is and has always been ease of carry. Officers carry pistols because pistols weight like 5 pounds loaded with spare magazines. Who the fuck wants to carry a rifle around? You pay dropouts to do that for you, they're called Marines.

Same thing in the medieval world. Why the fuck would you carry a pike around if you didn't have to? Those things are like twenty fucking feet long, to hell with that shit. Pay someone else to do it and wear a sword. Fucking hell, a pike? Or if you have to wear armor and carry a big weapon, ride a horse. Then you're sitting down, it isn't so bad. But walking around with a halberd? Jesus fuck what if you need to go through a door or something. Christ.

And it isn't even war!? You're just going to fight some monsters--what the fuck, you're going to bring a halberd? That's like, if you're going to go shoot some racoons, do you bring .22 or the PTRD your grandpa brought back from the war? Why would you bring the latter, you might as well drag a flak cannon out there and shoot the fuckers with that.

>>50141795
In most TTRPGs swords weigh like twenty points though because a lot of people have no idea how light they actually were.

to be fair though, most fantasy swords have such weird chunky designs that if you made them that way they probably would weight twenty pounds

Fuck actually I want to do exactly that.
But then my boards are /k and /tg, so...

how many [weapon sucks] thread have been made?

at this point it seems as if every single weapon wielded at any point in time was freakin useless

>>50141824

I guess you might as well make them super heavy if the people using them are likely to have the inhuman strength necessary to not get tired by it.

>>50121969

the cool factor and that they are easy to carry daily where as a polearm isn't.


also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCiFO7qV54E