Broadsword

[Dirigible]

Great honking unbalanced two-handed curved sword-thingies. They were called Grossmessern.

Not that I'm implying anyhting, Dogbrain, but this is the second time you've said Grossmessern twice in this discussion... sometimes, I can go decades wihtout saying Grossmerssern.

Re that pic of the chinese broadsword earlier... (http://www.gungfu.com/pics_info_pages/sword_chinese_broad_sword_9_ring.jpg)... I'm guessing this is not a battlefield/real combat weapon? More a dancing/display sort of fing?

Also, the estoc. I really love the estoc.

Re: Romeo and Juliet

Please. We all knwo the Bard was referring to an Uzi when he wrote 'long sword'. Haven't you seen the film?

 

[Dogbrain]

Thanks for posting the Clements article. What is about fencing that turns people into obnoxious pedants?

Here is my question: Are all red lights redlights?

If history means nothing, then just call all the weapons things like "oggieblodgit", "moo-wanka", and "feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep". Then you won't have to worry about people who've done some serious study making comments. However, if one is going to insist that a specific term with some historical usage be used, then it stands to reason that someone familiar with said historic usage might, especially on a thread devoted to the use of such a term, comment upon said historic usage.

Likewise, over several years, I have, many times, many many times, many times many many times many times, seen self-styled "experts" who get all their "information" from things like D&D books come around and try to "correct" people who have actually made some formal study of the field of Western Hoplology. Pretty much everybody who has made some formal study of Western Hoplology has run into this. After a while of being bombarded with it over and over, it gets tiresome.

Just how tolerant is the average D&D player of the rubbish that BADD used to publish? Some of the stuff that I've seen claimed regarding swords is on that level of accuracy.

 

[gloomymarshes]

By thatreasoning, a toothpick should do 4d10 damage.

try sticking one in your eye and tell me how much damage it did.

 

[Dogbrain]

Not that I'm implying anyhting, Dogbrain, but this is the second time you've said Grossmessern twice in this discussion... sometimes, I can go decades wihtout saying Grossmerssern.

Worse than that, I've also been known to say spada di lato and punta dritta from time to time.

 

[Azlan]

Oh, dear. Where does one start in the face of this? My. But it's quite a set of statements there. First, dear fellow, I'll say that you certainly have had a, "creative" (to not lie but still somehow maintain a semblance of politesse) historical "education"--if "education" is the appropriate word in this case.

I thought the information Aaron2 gave was sufficient and accurate enough to get his point across. But thanks for the additional and exacting information anyway, Dogbrain. It was an interesting read! Truly!

 

[MerakSpielman]

Likewise, over several years, I have, many times, many many times, many times many many times many times, seen self-styled "experts" who get all their "information" from things like D&D books come around and try to "correct" people who have actually made some formal study of the field of Western Hoplology.

Just how tolerant is the average D&D player of the rubbish that BADD used to publish?

(some snips)
BADD=???? Not "Bothered About Disposable Dragons," right?

Well, D&D does mess up quite a bit and uses very simple definitions of swords and armor. It's not a scholarly game, and I doubt they had any hoplologists on staff when they wrote the books.

How'd they do with polearms, BTW? Are they accurate? What about the old-school D&D plethora of polearms? As innacurate as the swords or no?

 

[Umbran]

Thanks for posting the Clements article. What is about fencing that turns people into obnoxious pedants? I thought the part where he willfully attempts to ignore early uses of broadsword - they obviously didn't mean "broadsword" just "swords that are broad" - was particularly enlightening.

Well, being an obnoxious pedant doesn't keep him from being correct.

And in terms of this discussion, the man has a point. "Swords that have broad blades" is simply too general a term - the gent notes that a great many different types of swords are covered, including what we D&D players would call a "longsword". If we're going to try to base minutae of game statistics on it, we ought to be basing them on specific terms, not general ones.

 

[nikolai]

Well, being an obnoxious pedant doesn't keep him from being correct.

And in terms of this discussion, the man has a point. "Swords that have broad blades" is simply too general a term - the gent notes that a great many different types of swords are covered, including what we D&D players would call a "longsword". If we're going to try to base minutae of game statistics on it, we ought to be basing them on specific terms, not general ones.

I make out that his complain is the "use of the term "broadsword" to denote all broad-bladed European swords" when he thinks "it should imply a basket-hilted sword of the late 1600’s to early 1900’s". To do this he just ignores that the word broadsword has been in use for 1000 years and that both swords and the meaning of words have evolved over that time. So what would have called a broadsword in the medieval or Victorian periods are different, but both uses are valid. Instead he just dogmatically asserts a "correct" definition, and beat on people who don't agree.

I can't see how using broadsword is a faux pas, when longsword or shortsword is okay.

 

[Ian Sturrock]

Real-world bastard swords seem to be basically longswords with a longer hilt - I've never held one but people who have say they're easy enough to wield one-handed.

Hmm, I find anything that weighs much over 2 pounds to 2 1/2 pounds is quite slow to use one-handed, especially in armour. Bastard swords are usually 3+ pounds (real ones, not D&D ones).

There's a mention of bastard swords in (IIRC) the Osprey book about the Siege of Malta. Apparently they were highly prized for sieges, since a couple of stout knights with bastard swords and shields could stand in a breach and just hack those Turks to pieces wholesale. So highly prized in fact that anyone strong enough and good enough to use a bastard sword effectively in one hand was paid extra to reflect his unusual skills. So, definitely worthy of an EWP from that perspective.

 

[Umbran]

I make out that his complain is the "use of the term "broadsword" to denote all broad-bladed European swords" when he thinks "it should imply a basket-hilted sword of the late 1600’s to early 1900’s".

Hm. You and I don't seem to be reading the same article.

I make out his complaint to be that the term "broadsword" has been used by different people to mean different things, and that some uses are technically precise and correct and some are not, and that leads to misapprehension.

I mean, think about it for a second - imagine someone sees a reference and physical description of the late 1600 to 1800 cavalry broadsword. Then, the same reader sees a reference to a "broadsword" of the 1400's (or a pseudo-Medieval), without precise descriptions, as you might see in a popular piece of fiction. Reader then thinks the 1800's type sword is around 400 years earlier, and gets an altogether inaccurate image...

To do this he just ignores that the word broadsword has been in use for 1000 years and that both swords and the meaning of words have evolved over that time.

Odd. When I read his work, he doesn't ignore it. In fact, he seems to have evidence that the term has not been in use for 1000 years. He spends an entire paragraph mentioning how experts of the Medieval period didn't use the term.

Do you have evidence that contradicts this?

Language is an ever evolving thing, yes. But don't get all huffy when someone with expertise in a particular area tries to make it cleaner and more precise. Without clarification and reinforcement of "proper" language, we'd have terrible difficulty trying to understand each other.

Instead he just dogmatically asserts a "correct" definition, and beat on people who don't agree.

Wow, where do you see "beating on"? I see no "beating". No berating, no belittling, no nothing. He simply states, "In and after the Victorian Era, authors used the word to mean X. When the term is originally used to mean Y."