A question about swords

[Sejs]

A surgeon's scalpel is stainless steel, too. It's a matter of the process and temper used to create it. In the main, steel is just steel.

Yeah, but to be fair, how often do you need to perform surgery on a frozen subject?


For purposes other than fun, I mean.

 

[BadMojo]

Two Handed swords (Greatsword is prolly the closest in DnD terms) were actually blunt weapons A manual was uncovered not long back from crusade days, that was a training book for using the greatsword and involved such manuevers as 'gripping the blade' to slam the sword into an enemies face.

I think that's a bit of a fallacy, at least if you're talking about 16th century "zweihander" swords. Everything I've read recently (including stuff from ARMA) came to the conclusion that these swords were long, but not as heavy as one would think and definitely not dull. Recent research seems to indicate that 15th-16th century two-handed swords that were intended for combat were used not only as slashing weapons but also could almost be used like a polearm...all by particularly burly Swiss and German dudes.

 

[Ranger REG]

Modern replicas tend to be made of stainless steel, because you can get it cheaply in sheets that can then simply be cut out in the propper shape, often by laser. Its the stuff your kitchen knives are probably made of. And if you've ever tried to stab a frozen hunk of meat with the tip of a kitchen knife, you should know how flimsy stainless steel tends to be.

Which is why I prefer hand-forged kitchen knives, even if one of them will cost me a three-volume set of D&D 4e.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Two Handed swords (Greatsword is prolly the closest in DnD terms) were actually blunt weapons A manual was uncovered not long back from crusade days, that was a training book for using the greatsword and involved such manuevers as 'gripping the blade' to slam the sword into an enemies face.

I think that's a bit of a fallacy, at least if you're talking about 16th century "zweihander" swords. Everything I've read recently (including stuff from ARMA) came to the conclusion that these swords were long, but not as heavy as one would think and definitely not dull. Recent research seems to indicate that 15th-16th century two-handed swords that were intended for combat were used not only as slashing weapons but also could almost be used like a polearm...all by particularly burly Swiss and German dudes.

Indeed- while the ricasso was blunt, the blades were quite sharp. It was only the gauntlet of the wielder that prevented nasty slicing injuries.

As was pointed out in the documentary, "the armor of the day was proof against the weapons of the day." IOW, but for weapons designed to pierce armor, most weapons will not penetrate the heaviest armor of the day. However, that didn't mean that the man IN the armor was invulnerable. The mere force of a strike transmitted through a solid blow (one that wasn't deflected) was enough to incapacitate via hydrostatic shock. A true bludgeoning weapon (flail, mace, etc.) might even crack bone despite not penetrating the armor.

Then why have a sharp edge at all?

Because 1) not everyone was fully armored, and 2) once you've stunned an opponent, a quick slice could finish the man off or permanently incapacitate him- usually, this job was reserved for a poingnard or the like, but any old blade in a storm...

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

I would firstly agree that the larger swords were actually as sharp as the wielder wanted it to be. While the gauntet would stop a nasty slicing injury there's often a blunt(er) section on certain later period greatswords specifically used in halfsword.

The idea that you would use your flat to parry someone elses flat is silly. It's simply not going to work; you feel the difference when you do it and an angled edge or strait edge can be more effective as a parry.

Sure it might be hard on the blade, but in a real combat you are much more interested with keeping yourself alive. You can always replace the blade. (Grandfathers axe, as always.)

Now, how often would a sword get cut up? Very, very rarely in a real fight. For one thing you'd need the target sword to be rock steady or coming at you just right; a beat or bash on someone's weapon will just move it and burr it a little, not break or cut it.

I would assume the biggest cause of burrs and notches (neither would markedly decrease the strength of the blade mind) would be beats (an attack on the blade) or hitching in someones bone. When I was test cutting with a rapier against a side of pig a draw cut got me seriously stuck halfway through a bone. moving it unfortunately moved the side of pig.

I would conclude that cutting someone deeply followed by a quick withdrawal would occasionally damage the blade or at least get it stuck. It did with my rapier anyway. A thrust through the brisket would do much the same thing I assume.

 

[Zweihänder]

I think that's a bit of a fallacy, at least if you're talking about 16th century "zweihander" swords. Everything I've read recently (including stuff from ARMA) came to the conclusion that these swords were long, but not as heavy as one would think and definitely not dull. Recent research seems to indicate that 15th-16th century two-handed swords that were intended for combat were used not only as slashing weapons but also could almost be used like a polearm...all by particularly burly Swiss and German dudes.

Precisely. These swords were, arguably, the pinnacle of melee technology, combining the crushing power of the Greatsword or Greataxe with the cutting power of a Wakizashi or a Rapier. The downside was, in fact, that you did pretty much have to have muscles like mountains to wield them properly, as the swords were only truly effective if you could aim them properly; with swords like that, you had to muscle them into position.

Also, the sword name is spelled "Zweihänder", like my screen name. The umlaut is crucial.

 

[Andor]

From what I recall of my own researches it's relatively rare for swords to be 'razor sharp.' Meaning sharpened to a fine edge angle. Rapiers would be, also the Katana and Wakizashi. The heavier western battle swords would have a less acute edge angle for greater strength.

 

[ValhallaGH]

From what I recall of my own researches it's relatively rare for swords to be 'razor sharp.' Meaning sharpened to a fine edge angle. Rapiers would be, also the Katana and Wakizashi. The heavier western battle swords would have a less acute edge angle for greater strength.

Also a duller edge is less likely to get stuck in bone. It will either bounce off or hack through it, cleaver style. Meat cleavers are very rarely 'razor sharp' for a reason.

 

[serraphin]

OK as pointed out - there are a great many names for various different blades, and I was being a bit to generalistic. I'm not overly familiar with the Zweihänder, I was referring more to the Crusading knight style greatsword - which was what the 'manual' I had seen referred to.

I've had a quick readup on the Zweihänder though. It seems to me that again, I should apologise, when I say 'blunt' I don't mean 'big stick' blunt.

As Andor pointed out 'most' older weapons were not razor sharp, they were sharpened though to allow some cleaving. However I note that the Zweihänder appears to have seen a lot of use as an anti polearm weapon, used to smash through pikes and halbeards - I don't see such a weapon being kept too sharp, simply due to the loss of keeness you'd get bythe time you got to a 'soft' target.

Comepare the Zweihänder two-handed sword to, say, the No-Dachi style weapons of the far east and you get to see different versions of 'sharp'. The No-Dachi (despite how folk would like to use it) was a massive curved cutting blade ideally used from horseback. Designed to slough away the ranks of chaff from an opposing force, it would have been forged using similar steel folding techniques as a Katana - giving it an incredibly strong cutting edge, yet a flexbile 'spine' (for steel you understand!) meaning your No-Dachi was a serious to gods 6'+ slicing dicing killing machine.

From what I can see the Zweihänder would indeed cut off limbs, heads and cut thy foe in twain - but I bet if you could forensically examine wounds from both blades you'd find a lot more 'tear' with your Zweihänder than that of a No-Dachi. Of course the No-Dachi wasn't quite as effective against other kinds of enemy.

Which is the reason I imagine there are so many different weapons out there - each to fulfill a niche

 

[Numion]

Also, if you are still interested: Watch the Mythbuster's hollywood special, wherein they Sunder several weapons-grade swords. using katanas. My favorite was when the rapier bent all the way back around, and returned to it's original shape... only to snap at the last... possible... moment!

I watched the show, and the fact they used a katana was of no consequence, since the sword didn't 'slice' through the target, but bent them broken. The same would've happened with any rigid and hard object that was used to strike.

Slo-mo of the rapier was wicked though. Some researched noted that a bent (unboiled) spaghetti will also usually break in 3 pieces instead of two, just like the rapier.