No weight though (which is why thugs (mob, gangs etc) prefer wood), unless you get/make a custom build one with some lead in the end. A normal aluminum one will hurt, but against a tough target they will probably push on through.
Unless guns mysteriously disappear on that fateful day in 2100, I highly doubt the sword or staff will become the weapons of choice (or even make any sense) afterwards. No matter how cool you look doing the “Ostrich Worships Sun” thrust pose, it’s unlikely you’ll get to the “Monkey Eats Furiously” stance before you realize your head is suddenly drafty.
So let me give me thoughts as to why swords are better than just about any other weapon, one on one (or one on a couple). Obviously if we are talking big army skirmishes on a battlefield I have no idea what I’m talking about. But here are my thoughts:
-
A sword is sharp down the whole side (or both sides) and also has a pointy bit at the end. This allows you to wave it around and have it be intimidating from almost any angle. It’s almost impossible to grab a sword mid air or deflect it in a way that it can’t slip out. It’s very, very “slippery” for lack of a better word. The long cutting edge also allows you to do neat things, like cut with the forte (the part of the blade right near the guard/grip). Or just fish around and stick someone with it. It’s versatile.
-
It doesn’t require much training. You get the idea of a sword pretty much when you handle it. It’s intuitive, because it’s like a big knife, and everyone has held a knife.
-
It’s pretty easy to maintain. Wipe it off and oil it up when needed.
-
It’s super fast. Relative to lots of weapons, the sword is crazy fast to swing, thrust, etc. Add in a little bit of training for beats, parry-ripostes, feints, etc. and you have some great, simple, fast techniques. This speed also makes it intimidating. You can wave a sword around and people will be hestiant to close with you. People seem to think they can dodge say, a spear thrust or hammer swing. I think they are more intimidated by a sword. Just my opinion.
-
Even when not a swordmaster, you can hurt with it. Most swordfighting wounds are/were to the hands and forearms. It’s the easiest place to hit and get hit. If I were in a real sowrdfight I’d defaintely go for the hands/forearms first.
I think there was a reason it was so popular back in the day. The only drawback I can really see is that it’s hard to make them and they are pretty expensive. Otherwise I’ll take a sword over a hammer, staff, etc. anyday.
Anyway, that’s pretty nerdy for one day. Fedora off.
Not an expert on military history but I believe the final form of melee fighters in history tend to be pikemen. Swords as a primary weapon were for officers/leaders only by the Renaissance. Then guns turned up.
Yeah weapon reach and troop organisation were the key advances that put an end to the ‘glory days’ of single combat/sword hero’s, and then guns turned up as you said, and even a chimp can pull a trigger.
Yep, the big ass spear seems to be the agreed ultimate in non projectiles.
At the risk of seeming like an uber geek:
I have owned one of these for many years. The “blade” is actually triangular in cross section with a razor sharp point. I use it as a cane because fucked up knee. But honestly nobody has ever thought it was anything but a real cane. Including going through metal detectors with it. As far as battle ready is concerned, this fits the bill perfectly. You wouldn’t be fighting someone else with their own sword. But a knife wielding threat would be way outclassed.
Spears and pole weapons trump swords every time. Swords were popular because they were side arms you could carry in civilian life. On the battlefield they were back up weapons in almost every situation (save some of the greatswords).
You could carry a sword and dagger/buckler around without too much issue. Walking around with a halberd or glaive is a whole other story. One on one the pole weapon wins, but no one carries a pole weapon for self defense - too big and bulky and is considered a weapon of war and illegal nearly everywhere. In many ways there is a parallel between rifles and pistols. Wearing a pistol isn’t strange, but walking around with a ready rifle is considered threatening and weird. Pistols are generally more reasonable for civilian self defense as well, though the rifle is going to win if it comes to violence in an open area.
Swords require more training than spears for the most part and are less effective in an open fight, but it’s more a status/legal issue.
Also swords require MUCH more care than any other weapon. An axe will still kill you if it’s blunt. A staff doesn’t require any sort of care. Swords tend to trump most other weapons due to ease of use in a fight, but require a fair amount of training. Axes are relatively slow, staves are actually better in many ways, but again it is a matter of portability for most. Against unarmored opponents the sword is really hard to beat though. Once armor gets in the picture, swords very quickly become ineffective.
So, not to argue here but I think those talking about spears are completely wrong.
Swords are not some sidearm or nice to have weapon. They were the G36 of the ancient world. They took a lot of effort to make and were typically only used by experienced or elite troops (or nobles). A spear or pike is easy as hell to make and great on the battlefield en masse. But if a lone spearman went against a lone swordman I think the sword has a huge advantage. The advantage of long, inexpensive, pointy weapons is to group them en masse to stop people from attacking a certain position, defend against cavalry.
The spear is the quick, cheap weapon. The sword is the more elagant, refined weapon. Both have their uses, both are deadly against pitchfork weilding peasants. But the sword is the better weapon, IMO. Peronally I’d go sword to spear anytime (that sounded bad).
Ok, internet nerd mode off for now.
I recall reading something in George Silver (one of the later “manuals” that people talk about) where he talks about how “in the olden days” every Englishman knew how to use a staff and that it was the best all-round weapon for general use. You can’t beat a big stick :)
A solution to the sword vs spear question.
Just happened to cycle through on my desktop rotation. How apt.
Only that isn’t true. Swords were more expensive, but also less effective. Reach is everything in melee and spears have it. And ask anyone in HEMA what wins in sword vs spear. Spear wins almost every time, to the point where some people think it’s only fair 2v1 against the spear. They aren’t elegant and don’t have the status of a sword, but they’re better weapons.
From a HEMA instructor:
Some sparring where the spear pretty much dominates anything short of a crazed rush:
And something less professional, but still relevant:
What about a stereotypical knight in full armour with a sword, versus a spearman? Does the guy with the spear still win because he’s less weighed down and can just keep distance and poke until he finds somewhere he can do damage? Or can the knight get up close because he’s not such a soft target anymore?
Once full armour became effective against edged weapons, the knights themselves switched to blunt weapons.
When peasant/non-noble troops fought armoured knights, the Dutch guys using goedendags were highly effective.
I’m a little freaked out that you’re going through metal detectors with a sword cane.
Never at an airport, I wouldn’t take such a stupid chance. Usually it’s amusement parks. Lots of walking. The head of the cane is metal. They put it in with stuff like car keys and belt buckles and pass it to me after I walk through.
If you’re going to an amusement park do you really need a sword-cane? Wouldn’t a regular cane make more sense? It’s a bit unsettling to me to think of people in amusement parks, the province of children, walking around with a sword.
Yeah but kids can be really annoying! The sword cane, a gentleman’s weapon, would seem perfect for a quiet and speedy dispatch of the terrors! Huzzah!
One on one, I’d give the edge to the knight just because he can make a lot more mistakes. Generally speaking armor makes a lot of weapons less effective. Give the spearman a Lucern Hammer or a Poleaxe and odds might swing more in his favor, though you’re still talking unarmored vs armored and the guy in plate has a pretty big edge. Give them both armor and the spearman has a pretty big advantage since the swordsman is going to need to half-sword to even have a chance of doing anything, but then the better weapon for both people is a mace or warhammer or the like.