How come swords are more common and often more powerful than other melee weapons like axes and hammers in games?

>Hurr durr sweep

>holds sharp blade with hands
dumb meme weapon

swords are a meme weapon. vidya should use axes, daggers, and clubs more

Because they are more A E S T HE TI C

make the entire pole a sword then. like a super longs sword, with another smaller sword at the end of it. perfect weapon.

>Swords
>Sharp

Dumb faggot

because hammers and axes are either repurposesd tools for other purposes, or else will be reporpurposesd for other purposes after what needs to die is dead.

Swords on the other hand. Swords only have one purpose, and are of little to no use besides.

Simply put, swords are more common in video games because murder is more common in video games.

If cropping and carpentry were more common you would probably see more torches and pitchforks.

>Swords
>Not sharp
Retard. I bet you believe only Japan made sharpened weapons. Just because people fought in armor doesn't mean they didn't have sharp weapons.

>what are gauntlets

Sword can stab and cut.

Swords are a meme weapon. Does that mean they're bad weapons? No. Does that mean they are highly overrated and highly taken out of context by know nothings? Yes.

>mad sword babby
We know you're generic and unimaginative, no need to broadcast it.

That's only true for the first half and middle sections of games. Pretty much all end game ultimate weapons tend to be fucking swords.

I know you're probably trolling, but there's a difference between razor or knife sharp and sword sharp. If a sword is too sharp it'll dull far too quickly and be even worse for combat than if it was not as sharp.

Something something cutting angles etc.

Swords are easier to model or draw. That's the real reason.

The katana will always and forever be THE meme sword that attracts all sorts of retards from all over. Name one other type of sword that attracts just as many retards as the katana does.

It happens in games and in real life. There's no beating the katana's retard attraction.

spears are the most commonly used weapon in history. cheap, easy to use, lethal, and relatively safe.

Axes and blunt weapons are weighted towards the head of the weapon, so they feel slightly unwieldy or cumbersome compared to swinging a sword which is weighted towards the hilt/hand.

Swords are also versatile (cut & thrust) and easy to wear in a scabbard.

Swords are usually the "hero's" weapon, while axes and hammers aren't typically seen as being used by the MC unless shown explicitly

Swordfag/owner here. They really aren't 'sharp' except on the point. You can hold the blade and swing barehanded as long as you're careful.

I'm a Halberd man myself.
But spears are cool too.

Well, there's Risen.

easier to model

More importantly, it takes a cutting motion to really cut anything, this is something you should be aware of just from having cut meat or even having eaten a stake. If you just press down on a piece of meat with a kitchen knife, there's a good chance you're barely going to make an incision, but if you apply a drawing motion, the meat is effortlessly cut in half.

Swords and fingers work the same way. If you hold it firmly enough to prevent the blade from sliding, even a sharpened sword won't injure your hands. And anyhow, even if it did, that would be the least of your concerns in a fight.

>a metal blade/slab on a long wooden stick
>cooler than long metal blade on short wooden stick

easy to carry. lightweight. useful for clearing underbrush

>not A E S T H E THICC

>swords are cooler than axes or hammers

>repurposed peasant tools
>noble status symbol for killing
Piss off lowborn scum

what a loser

What's the reason for this?

What about weight?

Swords do more. Cross guards, parrying, stabbing, cutting, slashing, etc. There's a reason every culture except for sub saharan africa invented swords.

Spears are actually worse weapons than swords. Spears are only great when bunched up together and protected like a phalanx.

Samurai movies are dope

Clubs are the grandfather of weapons and are still in use today in many forms.

Respect the club

That's why they just stopped using spears in the Middle Ages then, huh

>Swordfag/owner
nice try

>swords are for bashing meme
You can hold even sharpest blade with your hands if you hold it right, swords were sharpened and honed

Swings faster. If you imbue it with enough power, eventually the faster attack speed makes it better than anything else.

Spears are also easier and cheaper to produce in order to field larger armies. A hundred swordsmen would be fucked against a thousand spearmen, while their budget would be the same.

Although soldiers typically had to pay for their own gear.

who needs those shit when a guy with a spear could just stab you from 2 metres away.

They weren't really "soldiers" as we know them now, either
Like sure some of them trained and went through boot camp and they were generally knights and squires, but the rest were mostly just serfs that were required to have their own weapon

If you're a swordfag you should know that swords are sharp and are kept sharp. If you're buying Hanwei swords then you should know that they're sold "Hanwei sharp" which means not sharp at all.

The way to properly hold a sharp sword is by putting your palm on the flat of the blade and not the edge. This gives you enough friction and grip so that if you hold firmly the sword won't slip. If you put your palm on the edge it's cut city.

Right now it's longswords. I see more people spouting absolute bullshit about them than any other sword.

100 trained soldiers with swords that have 100 squires and 800 peasants working on fields will fuck up 1000 un-trained spearmen that have to work on field 80% of the time thus can't train

They won't.

10 knights will fuck up 1000 peasants just because armor is fucking insane
Unless the peasants just sort of pile themselves onto the knights

i think falchion deserves more popularity

LET ME KNOW WHEN YOUR HAMMER CAN DO THIS BAKA GAIJIN DESU SENPAI

youtube.com/watch?v=Qzhs1Z8Rwnk

>small number of well trained soldiers can't win against disorganized mob of peasants with spears
>that's why through all history of warfare till Napoleon war was fought with small number of well trained soldiers

What the fuck are you talking about, even in a 1v1 the spear user is probably going to win 90% of the time. It's a very agile weapon with a lot of reach and enough weight and force that getting smacked in the head will definitely fuck you up. Swords are the sidearm, like a pistol is to an assault rifle.

My favorite

Swords really weren't that expensive because back then everyone was fucking making swords. You could buy a sword with a day's pay in England. There were also a fuckton of them lying around, it was like buying surplus Garands after WW2.

Because swords are only melee weapon with their sons that are still used today with guns

Except polearms, especially spears, can attack at angles that a sword never could while also boasting more power and speed do to being mounted on a long stick. With a polearm, you can also instantaneously change your grip to accommodate close or mid range fighting and they can also commonly double as throwing weapons.

More attack angles, more power, more speed, more grip types, more techniques. The spear is a much more versatile weapon than the sword.

>There's a reason every culture except for sub saharan africa invented swords.
There's a reason why literally culture invented polearms/spears.

Bayonets still exist just because knives are useful in other ways than stabbing people
Honestly bapping someone in the face with the barrel of a gun would hurt like a bitch and probably do the job just fine without having a heavy thing on your barrel fucking up your accuracy

>implying you can't have a cross guard on a spear
>implying spears can't parry
>implying spears can't cut
>implying spears can't slash
>implying everyone didn't invent spears and use them as main weapons all the until post-WWI (bayonets are spears that use the rifle as a shaft)

Because swords look like dicks

...you can do all that with a sword, too
I mean, throwing your sword is retarded but plausible, in the same way that purposely disarming yourself is retarded but maybe you'll spear the guy

You moron. The bayonet is a spear-type weapon. The gun acts as the blade's shaft.

Because swords are more appealing to many people aesthetically than other weapons and swords are heavily associated with being the hero's weapon. They also have a versatile moveset which is an important factor when making gameplay. You can't do much fancy shit with a hammer but you can do a lot with a sword.
Anyone who tries to justify it with historic facts or something is an idiot.

how majorly retarded are you?

Bayonet are small swords, just look at the blade of those

How ineffective do you think plate armor is

>How come swords are more common and often more powerful than other melee weapons like axes and hammers in games?

More powerful? Never seen that in a game: Theyre always weaker.

I'm smarter than you kid

>The bayonet is a spear-type weapon
Are you retarded? It depends on the BLADE FORM and bayonets have swords blade you autist

Good. Axes are for wood, and maces for hammering nails, or breaking objects up. Swords are for murdering and neither of the former.

hmmm

>...you can do all that with a sword, too
You cannot. The spear empirically can attack at more angles than a sword due to the way it is held. You can literally attack around shields with a spear using various overhead, overhand and underhand grips. You can attack from the sides, you can attack from below and you can attack from above. A sword cannot do this because of how you have to hold the handle. For example, you can attempt to thrust from overhead, but you lose all of your control and power due to the awkward way you have to position your grip/arms. It's obvious you don't have a single fuck clue about this, so I suggest you stop posting.

axes are "barbaric" and "evil" and thus rarely used by protagonists. Hammers are the set choice for the "big but kind" characters

So do you think spears dont have a pointy end?

Yeah man, just look at it

No, you are the retard. Google Naginata. It's literally a sword stuck on a pole to become a polearm. The blade shape has nothing to do with its position as a polearm/spear weapon. That's why polearms have such varied blade types. Goddamn you are the dumbest motherfucker on this board.

>how you have to hold the handle
See
People got really, really creative with swords, feel free to read any combat manual

That's just a dagger on a stick idiot

When you put your bayonet on your gun you turn it into a short spear. Even the way you fight with bayonets is spear like.

When you take it off the gun it's a knife, not a sword.

youtube.com/watch?v=RUjPz7BKjlM

Halfswording is not even remotely the same thing, nor does it change your potential angles of attack. It is used for bludgeoning and attacking in extremely close ranges. Does your brain work?

Bayonet is literally knife on the gun, by your stupid logic if you halfsword Zweihänder it turns into a fucking spear

>overhead a spear
>break your pole against the shield

No. and spears are easier to use simply because give it to a peasant, and he can stab you with a pitchfork

You really don't know what sword fighting is, do you
And for real, how does something being longer give you more angles of close attack
They're both excellent weapons made for different purposes and neither is inherently better than the other

youtube.com/watch?v=Fx6snU_IRSU

What you're saying is pretty bullshit. The spear is an incredibly good weapon but swords are actually more versatile.

It kinda does

So what's the difference between sword and spear?

whats with the mad swordfags in this thread

spears are for poorfags
swords are for patricians such as myself

Weapons like polearms, hammers, maces, ect are more specialized than swords. They're all better at they jobs than a sword, but they suck at other things, while the sword is an all-purpose weapon.

>by your stupid logic if you halfsword Zweihänder it turns into a fucking spear
No, because the way your grip it is still a sword grip.

>And for real, how does something being longer give you more angles of close attack
Moron, you still don't know what a grip is. The way you hold a polearm is completely different from the vertical grip of a sword. And if you tried to hold a sword like a polearm, you'd get yourself killed because you just destroyed the effectiveness of your sword.

You'll be crying for a pike when knights roll up though, since their lances outreach your halberd, but if you manage to get them off their high horse, you'll have em by the balls

>grip
How does changing the grip alter the fact that you have 5 feet of wood to manouver

No shit retard, you just described spears

You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

>my only experience with weapons comes from video games

>spear main weapon
>an arming sword on the side
>a buckler
>carry a small hatchet as a tool
Woop de fucking doo.
Weapons aren't mutually exclusive you retards.

>This is a sword grip
>and totally not a spear grip

Why the fuck did I just have to open this thread?

The grip directly correlates to possible angles of attack, you moronic mouthbreather.

In shitty games, they are. A proper game will have damage types (slashing, piercing, blunt) which will apply in different situations, as well as reach.

Swords were actually quite a shitty weapon. They are just a big thing because usually the communities of the time outlawed actual war weapons, or they were simply easier to carry around around your waist instead of taking up both of your arms.

It's basically the handgun of the time.

"Look at me, I'm /his/ now" - this thread

This, but to add to it, think about movesets and how varied they can be for a sword (stabs, slashes, chops, etc) vs a spear or a hammer. I'm sure it started more because of the whole knight sword and board ideal, but they have a lasting power due to variety.

>One of the key advantages the spear holds over the sword is distance. Now, I don’t say “range” here, because obviously a weapon can have immense advantage at longer ranges, but be found to be lacking in close quarters. The spear, on the other hand, can be retracted to any length, allowing it to perform effectively well outside and even well inside the reach of a sword. This means that throughout a fight, the spear wielder would have complete control of distance, as they can keep the sword wielder at bay, with far reaching thrusts and cuts, while simultaneously being able to pull the length back should the sword wielder manage to close in.

>Unlike a sword, a spear can change the direction of an attack incredibly quickly, oscillating between the feet and the head with barely any motion. This is because of the length of the spear. Much like a lever, a small amount of motion in the back translates to enormous motion on the front, so a small movement of the arms can extraordinarily quickly bring the weapon to bear on a new target. The result is that parrying a spear thrust or cut, even if you have a shield or buckler, is incredibly difficult. while a swordsman’s arm needs to make an enormous motion going from the head to the feet, it takes little effort on the spearman’s part to make the same transition. The result is that if a swordsman is deceived by a feint for even the tiniest fraction of a second, the spear can already be thrusting into a completely different part of their body. Even if they do manage to catch this, the spearman’s disengage can be made so quickly that any opening the sword wielder leaves will be taken advantage of.

Filthy peasant

It cannot execute the same maneuvers due to the lack of length which also directly reduces its speed and power in that position. Halfswording was primarily for bashing your target to death with the pommel, which was often weaponized for that specific purpose.

>Contrary to popular belief, the spear is an excellent weapon for parrying. It is speedier than the sword, but it also holds another key advantage - that of leverage. Because of the length of the weapon, and the wide placement of the wielder’s two hands, a spear is incredibly hard to displace. Not only can it easily disengage from a swordsman’s cut or attempt to displace the head, but even at direct contact, a spearman would have little difficult shoving aside a sword blade before lunging in for the kill.

>Now, many might think that the solution to this is to cut off the spear’s head, but this is not at simple or easy as it might seem. The blow itself would be difficult to land on the ever moving spear, but even beyond that, it would take significant force, meaning that the blade itself would need to be heavy (and therefore harder to land a blow with) and the perfect angle to prevent it from simply bouncing away. This is a likely occurrence, especially when one considers that the spear is suspended in the air, not supported firmly from underneath. In addition to that, as shown in the picture below, many spears or other polearms had metal langets running down the sides (or were made entirely out of metal), resulting in almost zero chance of the swordsman effectively carrying out a decapitation

>Throughout medieval history, the polearm has been the weapon of choice, not only of the foot soldier, but of the military nobles such as the Samurai or Knight. In Japan, the Naginata or Yari was used as a primary weapon in battle over the Katana, and in Europe, Knights would usually carry lances, or other weapons such as the bardiche, only using the sword out of necessity. The sword was known as a “sidearm,” as it was an easily carried weapon in civilian life, and a great backup on the battlefield. However, few soldiers ever charged into battle with only their swords in hand.

Halfswording was for grappling

Now you're moving goalpost, first you said it's different grip thus it's not a spear, now it's "lack of length" thus it's completely different

Swordfags blown the fuck out by actual facts. These absolute retards can't even work out the most basic of physics and leverage.

Because of lack of leverage as well as the significant larger range of movement you are forced to make with your arm.

>first you said it's different grip
Because it is a different grip. There's a reason a sword isn't called a polearm. Just look at which sums up the physical characteristics and differences between the two. No goalpost is moved, you're just too fucking retarded to get it. The worse part is that you're arguing about something you obviously have no idea about and have no done any research on.

Defend this spearfags

Notice all the swords on the ground by the dead bodies and how everyone still standing is using a spear.

>Weaponfags trying to apply real life logic to video games
Swords are popular because they look cool, both in design and combat, and they have symbolic meaning. Literally all there is too it

exanima best game for this thread

youtube.com/watch?v=3K0BC_QXlKM

I think leverage is one o the most overlooked aspect of polearms that normalfags miss ALL the time, along with grip.

examina is a giant pile of shit

you forgot to mention that spear is useless against an hardened steel armor unless it's lance and you're on horse back, while sword can be used to bash

6 hours in Paint

Axes are bad weapons in general and hammers are designed specifically for use on horseback, which is not common in most games featuring them.

>. The worse part is that you're arguing about something you obviously have no idea about and have no done any research on.
You sound like a faggot that uses other anons arguments while can't make their own withour holes in logic

because swords were most common weapon
it's all about armor distribution among the masses
only small percent could afford it(15% or so)
so sword and bow was the most common weapon as a result

You reek of somebody that have no idea what he is talking about.

You reek of somebody that has no idea about physics

That's entirely false. A spear has more thrusting power than a sword and even thrusting swords were able to pierce hardened steel armor.
>what is the entire late medieval and pike & shot era which was dominated by polearms wielded by infantry

>hardened steel armor
yeah, late 15th c. last 40 years of armor use or so
what about other 1600 years?

You sound like a salty little bitch who realizes every point they made was entirely wrong.

>A spear has more thrusting power than a sword
technically penetration ability is the same, i'd even argue that bastards or two handed could penetrate the same with very strong user

pikes are just easier,beter lever, but nobody aimed for the abdomen - people knew weak points of armor and aimed there even with spears

what you are smelling is your own rancid ignorance.

non hardened steel plate + chain mail + gambeson. Pierce this spearfag

...

oh, also classic long sword is very thing at the tip
thinner than pike

>technically penetration ability is the same
No, it isn't. Not by a long shot. The overall length of the weapon dramatically increases its thrusting ability.

>Piercing hardened steel armour

No. First off, pike and shot is Renaissance not Medieval. Secondly during the Renaissance common soldiers didn't wear full plate. Usually a helmet, gloves and a breastplate without backplate. Thirdly, you can find examples of plate armour that was made to resist musket balls. Armourers would test their creation by shooting a musket at it and people would check for these proof marks to see that they were buying a quality product.

Chain is enough to keep you from getting stabbed by a spear. The real problem is impact damage which is why the mace, axe, pole weapons and falchions were popular during the time of chain armour.

DEFINITIVE LIST OF MELEE WEAPONS BASED UPON THEIR EDGINESS.
1. Scythes
2. Japanese swords (Katanas/Uchigatanas/Wakizashis/etc.)
3. Claws
4. Daggers
5. Fists
6. European Swords (Short swords/Long swords/Zweihanders/etc.)
7. Axes
8. Maces & Hammers
9. Spears & Polearms
10. Flails
All other opinions are objectively wrong.

woah, you should start with wikipedia at least

gamberson doesn't protect from penetration only from slashes
chainmail is not worn under plate, only under some early plate for very short period

Just play Mount & Blade: Warband. Has every medieval weapon under the sun and they're all balanced with unique strengths and weaknesses.

Pretty good, but the lack of support volley fire and formation tactics triggers me. Also no flanking wtf.

>No. First off, pike and shot is Renaissance not Medieval.
So you're saying you can't read.
>Thirdly, you can find examples of plate armour that was made to resist musket balls
Only at a long enough distance. This was true all the way until the civil war, where isn't was rare for a commander to wear a breastplate for such a eventuality. You suck at this.

>Chain is enough to keep you from getting stabbed by a spear.
Chain DOES NOT protect from penetrating wounds. Fact. It is somewhat effective against axes and swords if it's slashing hit, or wide tip kind of sword.

Gambesons definitely do protect from stabbing. I don't know why you'd think they don't when a good gambeson is enough to protect against arrows.

They don't have flails

Rapiers aren't edgy. They are pointy.

>good gambeson is enough to protect against arrows

armor Cred Forums threads used to be competent

6 should be split.
Short swords are significantly less edgy than other swords because they aren't "cool".
Two handed swords are edgier than one handed ones because muh edgy berserker who fears no wounds wouldn't wield a practical, light weapon that can be used indoors.

Hammers should be a step above maces, because edgy characters sometimes carry oversized sledgehammers.
Maces are only edgy when spiked and that's pretty rare.

chainmail were used in gaps of plate armor. And while gambeson is mainly against slashed it's still layer of clothes between body and tip of the spear. And if you even somehow were able to pierce armor, tip of the spear will be stuck in it not even touching the body

>Chain DOES NOT protect from penetrating wounds
Actually, it does. Chainmail is extremely effective at spreading the impact's force over a wide area. Just go watch videos of impact tests. The big flaw of chainmail is that it takes a really long time to create and it is extremely heavy since it hangs from the shoulders and head whereas plate was faster to make and was strapped across the body which drastically reduced its burden.

You literally never said Renaissance, you said Medieval. Those are not the same thing in any way.

You're not going to pierce through a breastplate with a spear or sword. What the fuck would the point of armour be, then? You either need specialized weapons like hammers, maces and picks or you aim for the gaps. You DO NOT aim for the armour.

So you don't know anything about mail then

youtube.com/watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM

>You literally never said Renaissance, you said Medieval. Those are not the same thing in any way.
You absolutely moron. I said the late medieval age and pike & shot era. Two distinct time period. Kill yourself, modern education has failed your reading comprehension.

Warbows had incredible draw strength and often fired thin, armor-piercing arrows.

Bows used in wars weren't like modern sporting bows, but monstrosities that favored power over accuracy.

fun fact: HEMA fighters do not know shit about actually cutting,stabbing, slashing
whenever some of them tries it for the first time after years and years of HEMA training they suck at it=> they do not know how to use a sword

Chainmail was effective at guarding against thrusting attacks, but you're totally right about HEMA fighters being clueless retards.

youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso

Cmon man, you should know this shit

Any games with a good selection of Indian or bronze age weaponry?

Seeing as cutting tournaments are held and many clubs emphasize cutting practice I don't know why you'd get the impression that HEMA fighters are all incompetent.

Fact of the matter is that chain WILL protect against stabs and cuts

very, if 2 people hold you down while a third one takes a small knife and stabs it in the weakpoints you can´t defend anymore because you are in constricting and tiring armor while two people also weigh you down.

The knights would win because of fear.
Fear of losing your life when it is pretty much everything you own, fear of being the next one to be cut down, even though the knights would die of exhaustion after killing even 100 peasants, assuming the peasants try dodge their blows.

The armor adds to the impression the knights would make, but it does not make them impervious to anything but glancing and unaimed strikes.

>Halfswording was primarily for bashing your target to death with the pommel
The vast majority of depictions of half-swording show the sword being used like a spear, where the purpose is to thrust the tip into the gaps of your opponent's armour.

Techniques like the Mordhau, where the sword isn't used in a half-sword grip but actually reversed, are the exception.

So if HEMA clubs are full of idiots, where/how do you learn to properly use a sword

>HEMA fighters being clueless retards
Opposed to whom? People who cut bottles in their backyards and internet experts?

>what is Battle of Agincourt

You know absolutely jack shit about plate if you think it doesn't protect you from direct strikes. You actually do need specialized weapons to deal with armour. What the fuck would the point of wearing it be if it DIDN'T protect you from strikes? Medieval armour wasn't actually as heavy as you think and it weighs about the same as modern soldier's kits. You know, the same stuff they run around the desert in.

Yes, if you get hit in the head with a very well aimed hammer, mace or poleaxe blow but again, those are weapons made for dealing with plate.

>using weapons
>not studying the way of the fist

At HEMA clubs, but you need to try harder.
History attracts retards because retards glorify the past. This doesn't mean you can't learn about it, just that you will need to learn to separate bullshit from truth first.

Contemporary military records and accounts that weren't made by monks.

This is what happens when archers aren't defended by men-at-arms and other defences:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

Heavy cavalry easily mows them down because longbows can't reliably penetrate plate armour.

You do understand that the force of that would still put that man out of the fight right?

Casualties are something people forget about in fights. Just because you can't fight anymore in that battle doesn't mean you're dead. Plenty of other ways to put a man out of the battle.

flails are shit and a fucking meme

And where do they contradict anything people in HEMA say?

>be given humanity for free
>disregard it and act on nature instead, choosing to use the weapon even chimps have
Animal uses its limbs.
Man uses a fucking missile pod.

>So if HEMA clubs are full of idiots, where/how do you learn to properly use a sword
get this and teach yourself

amazon.com/Art-Sword-Combat-Treatise-Swordmanship/dp/1473876753/

Preferably get it in German though, it loses in the translation

Bring out the gimp.

This is true. The main role of bows in warfare was firing in arcs to rain arrows on targets to keep them pinned and vulnerable to direct attack, not penetrating/killing targets. That was just a bonus. Crossbows were used for volley fire, which later became the role for muskets.

Arrows don't pierce plate, user. Agincourt was a struggle that was hours long and most knights that went down did so because their horses were taken out, not because they took an arrow to the chest.

Didn't imply they would.

Just meant that in this particular case plate armor was hugely ineffective.

I guess nobody in HEMA would ever have thought of reading a book

And yet, it still protected from the arrow

They did, but they dismiss it as shit because they're too retarded to make it work

English were using plate armor too, you know

If plate armour was ineffective they wouldn't have kept wearing it for more than two hundred years after Agincourt. Not to mention that at Agincourt full plate armour wouldn't even have been around yet since it only came up in the decades that followed.

I was under the impression that ancient treatise like that are what is taught in most HEMA clubs.

The nobles were captured and killed as prisoners, they weren't killed because of bows. Their horses died and they were captured because of it, though.

Whoa man, that's definitely a good plan. Just read the fucking manual! Nobody in HEMA has ever thought of that before. Wow man, thanks for the advince!

Unfortunately just reading the manual and practicing by yourself is a poor way to learn. There were more than a few things that I had no idea how to execute until I practiced with other people. Cutting practice is fucking easy and you can do it by yourself but learning how to fence isn't something you can do without practicing with others.

The problem is when you read treatise and don't look at historical accounts of actual combat and don't actually participate in realistic combat. You can look at martial arts manuals all day (which may or may not be accurate, especially when they're from hundreds of years ago and only a few survive), but there's only one way to become an expert martial artist.

These guys know what's up

cechsvmichaela.cz

MACES ARE THE BEST
The only ones who disagree are buttmad nobles who had their engraved armor caved in

Spears are for you and your mates
Swords are for that posh faggot that rounded every man in your village that hides behind you spear

Of course they were.

>I can't read

I'm not saying it wasn't good or useful, just saying that plate armor does not make you as immortal as some of you seem to think.

well since we don't fight with swords anymore the best way to learn is to fence with other people

>peasants used pitchfork in medieval times
Kek.
The reason spears are given to peasants were the ease of manufacture and the fact that they'll be mostly fighting in tight formations.

Welcome bro. And i though /tg/'s sword threads were autistic.

Not a word you just said was true.

>I can't think
That does not lead to the conclusion that plate armour was ineffective you retard.

>were the ease of manufacture
No, in England even poor were made by law to have sword, long knife, bow of crossbow. They were easily made but spears were much easier to train people to use, which why they were muskets of medieval time

>in this particular case

reading comprehension seems to be lacking here.

>even thrusting swords were able to pierce hardened steel armor.
No they were not. Not a single time in history has a sword optimized for thrusting ever pierced hardened steel armor. Ever. Go ahead and try to prove your point with evidence; you won't find any.

Nigga a sword is gonna dull nonetheless. If the sword couldn't hold an edge it means the metal is shitty or the smith was a hack.

Again, the nobles died because they were killed after capture, not because they took an arrow to the chest. They were slaughtered as prisoners.

because a sword is reliable for any situation

>falchions
Daily reminder that if you think a falchion was a heavy chopping sword, like some kind of sword-axe hybrid, you are 100% entirely WRONG.
youtube.com/watch?v=7WaE9AqrIAU&list=PLWklwxMTl4szgOkBBVjaSJeqd25uHAnl4
This guy sounds like a huge faggot but his information is accurate.

Also maces weren't popular in the "time of chain armor." The "time of chain armor" spans over 1,000 years.

What tells you that it was the armour that was ineffective in this case? The armour worked perfectly fine like it always did.

>No in England even poor were made by law to have sword, long knife, bow of crossbow
That was a Military decree for Yeoman's. A social class of people wealthy enough to own land.

And don't use a singular subject when the argument can cover a wide area of focus. There is a reason why Polearms were the mainstay weapons of the infantry before the advent of mass firearms.

But it's true. Swords were side arms.

Shorten your reach, then.

Patrician elder spear user. Scoffed at the initial release of passes but realized incoukd spearhead a better future for Cred Forums by supporting the site and community i love.

Tl;dr spears > swords.

Spear knight out.

>MACES ARE THE BEST
Go back to the chapel Clergyman.

Shit messed up my spear post

sush now user, before they bring up the Roman Legions argument.

Again, I haven't implied that the armor was pierced. What I have meant is that the armor was ineffective because of it's weight in the mud.

They lost because the armor was heavy to walk and maneuver in the mud, also it was hard for the knights to see and breathe because they had to put their visors down since the English were raining arrows on them.

Armor can be ineffective without actually being penetrated by a weapon.

wait what the fuck I know I have a mobile and a pc pass but if your pass expires it starts from the newest? Or is it based on email history HIROSHIMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not really. With two warhammers it just becomes a much more physical, contact heavy scene. So the bigger guy will generally have to win for it to be believable.

>spear knight

Something's wrong. The whole idea of just pulling the spear back if the sword guy gets in to close. It claims the spear is still effective like this. How could it be? You'd be holding the spear near the head with 5+ ft of wooden shaft behind you. It doesn't make sense.

An estoc or rapier, maybe

And yet they didn't die because of their armour, they died because of their shitty charge into a prepared enemy on a hill.

Calling it ineffective is misleading then as it implies that it didn't do its job - which it did perfectly fine.

Inwas waiting for this.

Get at me you stubby as swinger better yet see me in a hallway with that sword of yours. I fuckin dare you. Sword knights been shittin on spears but we put our fuckin work in. Society is finally starting to give us our come up and all these sword ass knights tryna keep us from our rightful place in the light.

>I need a phallic substitute to feel secure on the battlefield
lol

It's really not as hard to handle a spear as you think it is

>Swordfag/owner here. They really aren't 'sharp' except on the point
You're stupid and/or wrong, take your pick. Swords are sharp most of their way up on their true edge side, and even single-bladed swords usually are sharp on the other side near the tip.
>You can hold the blade and swing barehanded as long as you're careful.
This is correct though. There's a certain way to grip it.

ThisThere was also the fact that after the First charged fumbled the rest of the dumb French Nobles also charged. The Knights that were still standing suddenly found themselves with no means to retreat. The Knights in front was trying to retread while the ones in back where pushing forward and when the english archers ran out of arrows they also started pummeling the fumbling knights. The French removed their advantages with their posh stupidity.

Swords are objectively better than axes or maces for a majority of scenarios.

That's not an answer.

Agincourt was flat terrain you're confusing it with Crecy. The french were fags and leave it at that.

Is the reverse grip stance actually practical for irl sword combat?

>The whole idea of just pulling the spear back if the sword guy gets in to close
You won't have to do that cause you'd be in formation with at least a couple dozen of other guys behind and beside you.

Armor shouldn't tire you out in a battle so much that you can't lift your weapon when you reach their lines though.

Then again, without the armor they wouldn't have reached the lines anyway, so it's a loss either way.

what?

why were swords the most common?

they arugably take the most skill to craft and use more valueable material than a spear for example

No. Its a meme.

Swords are surprisingly versatile. Beyond the obvious slash and stab, wielding the sword as illustrated lets one use the sword like a pick: Think of the crossgaurd as the head of a hammer.

I forget what the technique is called, but historians have found evidence that this was actually used.

Using it against a readied opponent with a similar sword seems like a dumb fucking idea though.

Overconfidence is bad.

If you look at the image you can see the proper way to shorten your grip. You don't choke up your hands near the head, you just pull the spear back or put your hands nearer the middle of the shaft rather than near the butt of the spear.

You're right, they just fucked up a charge into a dug in and prepared enemy and wondered why they lost

it's not as bad as you might think

youtube.com/watch?v=vi757-7XD94

>Armor shouldn't tire you out in a battle so much that you can't lift your weapon when you reach their lines though.
You don't stay in the front for the duration of a battle in most scenarios you'd rotate the line. And a battle isn't one constant clash, its mostly a charge, reform, charge till the enemy routs or you find a weak spot you can break.

cool gonna check that out

Yet the french fags repeated their mistake. Twice.

I think this image speaks far more than any sword poster would care to admit.

Hold your spears firm lads and remember they can't stab you if they cant grab you.

>Around swords protect your lords.

>maces and hammers that low
>scythes on top

Get out of my face

maces and hammers are the best melee weapons

That's a lance not a spear you mongoloid

It's in terms of edginess, not how cool they are. The edgiest weapons, a.k.a. the ones autists gravitate towards the most are at the top.

>their firing their guns sir!
How do i solve this?

Spears>Swords>Everything else
Prove me wrong

In Fiore's manual spears were called lanza. Besides that only tournament lances look like that. There's really not enough of a difference between spears and lances to make the distinction.

Why are these videos and people always so cringy to me? It doesn't help that they never seem very sincere.

...

Axes, hammers, and spears can be used for rather pedestrian uses. Swords have no use except for killing people and are harder to use, thus giving them a mystique unmatched by other implements.

Firearms>Cavalry>Spears>Swords>Everything else

It reduces your cut range, but doesn't actually give you more leverage or control.
It looks okay because in the media, swords do not have to deal with cutting resistance, so anything thats bad with it is edited away

Maybe because swords can also be used defensively unlike axes and hammers?

>always so cringy
Cause they're just basement dwellers that took their hobbies far.

Probably because you're an insufferable person that thinks everyone should like the same things and do the same things. Anything else is haram.

This guy has some stabil videos

youtube.com/watch?v=gQv_mCNkAbo

longbows were notably better than average at piercing armor than regular bows.

the french had like 2k cavalry 5k-7k infantry a few thousand archers and about a thousand crossbow men.

the english had about 1k infantry and 5k archers.

The french lost 8k men. That is 8000 that is 8 thousand. (Eight)

The english lost 100. (one hundred)

Long bows were devastating weapons. It is hard for modern people to comprehend the significance of the technological leap of long bows because hey they are just bows right? but they shot significantly farther and had more penetration power than regular bows.
Long bows were a feared weapon for a reason. They were arguably the start of the rise of projectile weapons superiority in war.

Giving polefags, macefags, and armorfags a platform for posting even though they're fat neckbeard sloths.

>The katana
Retard

>Longbows piercing armour
>Any bow piercing armour

no

youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg

But what works in practice isn't equivalent to actual combat. Until you get MMA level dudes participating in bloodsport, either as individuals or as combat units, the only real knowledge we can go by is historical fact concerning real battles and deduction via general physics and impact/ballistic testing. Also, a big component in combat knowledge is having an extensive study into the specific materials and manufacturing techniques of various time period. General strategy based on physical and historical fact will always be more accurate than adherence to the specifics of treatise by an individual or small group with little regard for empirical historical and physical fact.

what? Are you retarded?

swords are just specialized knives.

and every fucking weapon be it a war axe or a war knife, is not suitable for pedestrian uses. I fucking dare you to go and try to chop down a fucking tree with a war axe or go an beat a nail into the wall with pic related

>salty ass longswordfags
Keep crying, bitch nigga.

Daggers are the ultimate weapon

Woah, calm down and put your katana back in its cardboard box. Was not trying to offend anyone and yet you got so butthurt.

Dagger, Bow and Spear is the holy trinity of weapons.

Also, the Gladius was a long dagger. Not a sword.

Bow and Arrow>>>>>>>>>>> both

Sword faggotry is a great metric in determining whether the combat system is shallow or that the devs lack any creativity. Obsession with swords is perhaps the single most cancerous meme in diluting combat variety in games.

>tfw we will never have televised battles to the death with ancient weaponry

I bet nutters would volunteer too

Except you can reconstruct historical sword fighting through study and practice. The manuals wouldn't be very good if they were only good for MMA level people, now would they?

We also do know the materials and manufacturing techniques for swords of the time. What you typed out was nonsense. Good sounding nonsense but nonsense all the same.

You could buy one on eBay and just put it on :^)

>Long bows were devastating weapons
No, no their not. They're good weapons but they are not "destroys plates at 500 yards" good, a longbow only pierces plate at less than 20 yards with a lucky shot. Their effectiveness in battle came from the fact they they are used in mass.

>see

And yet you're still an insufferable faggot

People say this like the spear holder is incapable of any action after someone gets past their spear point.

The spearman can still dodge, retract the spear, or even kick the attacker.

And this is what makes the obsession with swords all the more retarded. It is a tool that only has a purpose in killing -- Except it is actually mediocre at killing if you are fighting a well equipped warrior. Spears and Axes not only have obvious practical application in human history but are much more versatile in war when implemented in polearms.

The only time reverse grip is practical at all is if you're trying to stab someone with a knife but lack upper body strength. IE, women use it a lot when murdering people.

>Spearmen are dead if you get within their reach
>But Half Swording (AKA half ass spear) CQC is perfectly valid

Why are fucking sword assholes so fucking retarded?

swords were the equivalent of SIDEARMS to most warriors and knights back in the day. Spears and polearms were the main weapons most of the time. Hell even the samurai were better archers and raiders than sword carrying infantry.

Reverse grip with a knife is useful if you want to grab something since it frees up your thumb and the blade will be facing away from your body in most motions. Good for CQC as well because of that.

Reverse grip with a sword is retarded.

Maybe some very special parrying techniques.

If you did that with a spear you'd still do nothing to armour. If you tried to stab him it would do sweet fuck all. You actually do have to get a really good hit on the arms, head or legs to wound a guy in armour.

This is why people aimed for the gaps in armour or circumvented it entirely by using hammers on horseback.

Any well equipped warrior will be hard to kill no matter what weapon you're using.

Clearly you're behind on the most recent memes, kid.

It has recently been concluded by all the psuedo-historian medieval weapons Youtubers (Lindybeige, Skallgrim, Schola Gladitoria) that Axes are in fact, shit. /his/ is also in agreement that axes are 100% inferior to swords. They are just shit weapons. Shit. A good example to demonstrate this is the Viking era. In the Viking era, the rich who could afford swords would immediately choose them over hand-axes, as they were DIRECTLY superior and highly sought after. They didn't become a status symbol for no reason.

>hammers

Also utter shit outside of the highly specific context of late medieval fully plate armoured combat. In any other time period, before or after, a sword will be better than a hammer in every single way.

Except no, his ribs are shattered and he's unable to fight.

>Lindybeige
I'd like the bastard but for every topic he spews most of the time he only gets his information from a single source and he britwanks a lot. His Bren was better than MG-42 was cringy as fuck.

Maybe a real wicked bruise but ribs shattered? No.

>If you tried to stab him (with a spear) it would do sweet fuck all.
>but half-swording stabbing (with a sword) is perfectly effective!

Pollaxes specialized in cracking through knight armor and they maintained the spearhead for damn good reason.

Let's test it.

and now we get round all the way back to shields and spears

youtube.com/watch?v=vwuQPfvSSlo

>Arming sword art made for cattle fornicators

Axes as stand alone weapons are mediocre.

Axes when implemented into polearms are patrician tools due to the hooking strategies and the further increased striking power.

Do you enjoy parroting your favorite psuedo-intellectual youtubers? Swords have seen more primary usage than any other melee weapon except the spear. But of course your retarded youtubers like to pretend a very small time period (1400-1500) represents the entirety of history.

I think you meant.
>His Bren was better than Spandau was cringy as fuck.

A sword is most suited to a travelling adventurer/civilian. It's carried easily, versatile, and is socially acceptable to have hanging at your side everywhere. A spear/polearm would just be silly to be lugging around on a long adventure, designed more for battlefields and larger formations. Medieval messengers carried spears on foot, but mostly just as a symbolic walking stick.

Halfswording works because it's meant for grappling a person into a bad position then stabbing the joints. If you tried to stab a guy's armour with a sword it would still do sweet fuck all.

Also, the head of a poleaxe wasn't a spearhead, it was a spike and again, you wouldn't be trying to stab directly through the guys breastplate. You used the hammer or axe head to bash the guy's helmet in.

they did

Spears do have a huge weakness
They're mostly made of wood which means somebody skilled enough can grab the wood part and fuck you big time

Can't do that shit with a sword because it's mostly made of blade

The English used quarterstaves as traveling weapons and it is even commonly depicted in fantasy (overwhelmingly with Wizards) to this day.

The spear is a hunting weapon with a 400,000 year history. While it would certainly raise more eyebrows in a domestic setting there is nothing unreasonable about a spear/bow hunter traveling the wilderness.

This. The fucking Roman Legion used the sword as their primary for CENTURIES. Practically all cavalry regiments from 1600+ also had the sword as their primary. The sword is just an excellent primary. Even when it's the secondary, it's used as the secondary because of its high reliability unlike whatever clunky ass primary pole-hammer-axe-spike-blade those late medieval tards used.

>A good example to demonstrate this is the Viking era. In the Viking era, the rich who could afford swords would immediately choose them over hand-axes, as they were DIRECTLY superior and highly sought after.

This makes me rage, especially since victory at the battle of hastings extensively relied on the viking huscarl's implementation of the deadly long handled axe which could cleave shield and chain alike.

Those same youtubers say specifically that they're talking about a specific period of history.

Even in later periods of history they weren't the majority weapon. They were still a sidearm and they always will be.

I'll Spandau her hole.

Of course you can grab the enemy blade. What the feck are you yapping.

>excellent weapon for parrying.
No it's not
It's fucking shit-tier and you can easily cut wood if you hit it strongly enough

Not to mention that considering a spear is mostly made of wood there's always the danger of your opponent managing to grab your spear and then you're fucked

>Its not a spear, its a spike!
>Half swording works and such CQC totally can't be used by spears!

But yes impaling a prone opponent is much more effective. Good thing polearms such as the Pollaxe were much more proficient at making targets prone than swords as well.

...

every weapon had a purpose and was used accordingly, there is no "best" weapon

Actually, the gladius was a mainstay weapon for about 300 - 400 years. That's only a fraction of the Roman Empire's history. Even then, they would typically use their pilums and siege engines first before closing into the extremely close combat required by the gladius.

The gladius represented a huge leap in sword technology, due to its strong stabbing tip made via new metallurgical techniques. However, it did not so soley dominate combat tactics as you so believe. It was simply a weapon that had a time and a place in the Roman military complex.

Swords are much better in very close fighting than spears. A sword will be a better grappling weapon in the vast majority of situations. I like the spear but I don't practice it because of it's close grappling potential, I practice with it because it's far superior at range.

And yes, a spike isn't the same thing as a spearhead. You'd have to be retarded to confuse the two. You also don't grapple with a poleaxe you keep at range and bash the guy's head in. If the person got within his range with a sword you'd be fucked with the poleaxe.

Okay guys, but what weapon can best Hwachas?

this thread reminds me of the threads where people argue if a dragon should have 6 or 4 limbs.

Spear wood was actually tough as shit which is made further difficult due to the wielder constantly changing weapon angle -- The default angle being towards you, rather than perfectly perpendicular to a strike.

So your entire argument is "We cant know which techniques are useful without combat experience, and since we don't have that we should look at records of battles". That sounds nice, but you forget that these techniques were used in actual combat for hundreds of years, they wouldn't be in the treatises if the didn't work.

Those are at home, a motherfucking bayonet yatagans. They were made for the Martini-Henri rifles the Ottoman empire used in the late 19th century. Those two got captured by Bulgarian rebels and ended up with me

You can also find pictures of people stabbing through armour with swords. The fact of the matter is that's the shittiest way to deal with armour. Especially when you have a poleaxe.

How about you do some actual research before spewing your speculations.

best weapon

>prove me wrong

Yes, but nobody wants to lug around a spear all day unless they're in a battalion on a battlefield.

The dudes you're responding too are correct. Swords are only used for killing people, they radiate status because of that.

>gladius
>sword

>Polearms are ineffective up close meme
Polearms by nature of superior leverage; especially if they have an axe head, are superior CQC tools outside of grappling range.

If you are in grappling range the dagger is the choice weapon, not a sword.

>Practically all cavalry regiments from 1600+ also had the sword as their primary
I'd give you the Roman Legions. But this is just fucking fucktarded. I'd guess your knowledge of weaponry and armament came from playing total war.

Hes right, dumbest motherfucker

god damn this fat motherfucker gets me every time

I remember watching a dvd of their merchandise back in the day, and he's just panting and wheezing swinging every weapon they show off while simultaneously trying to look like a hardened badass. Comedy gold.

Unfortunately the old Swordplay style is not left in present Europe.

Daggers are much better in very close fighting than swords. A dagger will be a better grappling weapon in the vast majority of situations. I like the sword but I don't practice it because of it's close grappling potential, I practice with it because it's far superior at range.

And yes, a spike isn't the same thing as a sword. You'd have to be retarded to confuse the two. You also don't grapple with a sword you keep at range and bash the guy's head in. If the person got within his range with a sword you'd be fucked with the sword.

see this

Polearms are great for grappling because it's a bar you can literally completely immobilize someone with that has incredible leverage. Also, when you need to shank a dagger is going to be better.

While this is true, swords are objectively overrated and over represented to a disgusting degree. The mystique behind swords has them being portrayed as almost sacred objects rather than the limited tools they are.

...

you don't, you learn to shoot a gun
you can learn to fight with a knife somewhat in seals,specnaz kind of thing, they teach it as support skill

there is nobody alive that has the experience passed on by survivors of actual sword fight , it was built brick by brick for centuries
just like modern combat is built on ww1-2,vietnam, aphganistan etc. which were built on previous wars with guns

I blame excalibur

That's why half-swording exists.

>with a sword you keep at range and bash the guy's head in
Bashing is the opposite of what you do with a sword.

The hunt is a very specific setting with specific tools, not the same as a long journey. It would be annoying to try to travel on horseback with a spear/polearm for example. Though, a heavy spear would be ideal for fighting big beast-like monsters equivalent to stuff like bears, boars, etc.. A medieval "quarterstaff" as a travelling weapon was really just a walking stick, which is of course useful but you'd be better off having a sword as your real weapon.

yea and war axes, battleaxes, war hammers and battlehammers and maces aren't only used for killing people

real life WOOD CUTTING axes don't look like pic related for very good reason. I dare you, go an chop trees with pic related axe.

I swear you fucks are more retarded than /k/

>Polemen and spearmen fighting it out
>Swordmen dead on the ground
Looks about right to me

>using missile pod
>not using your secret demonic powers

The sword is still a superior CQC weapon than a spear. The problem will always be getting within your effective range. Don't bring daggers into this and expect me to say "yes of course, because a dagger is better in close than a sword that means the spear is better in close than a sword"

The spear is not a superior CQC weapon. A good weapon but seriously, it's not great up close.

>they wouldn't be in the treatises if the didn't work
Entirely false. There is already a large amount of completely bullshit military information out there concerning that time period. Most of it was written by monks and scholars instead of warriors and generals. That's how we ended up with drawings and accounts of things like this.

dat ass tho

Swords are something people could carry around in everyday life due to their size. They are also very expensive compare to other weapons. And because they could be carried around in everyday life, they often have decorations.
In order words, they are a status symbol.

It is a similar reasons why handguns are so glorified. It is even more likely to be decorated than other guns.

you can't blame King Arthur since he also had a magical dagger (Carnwennan) and spear (Rhongomyniad)

No, but to the dirty peasants, a battleaxe is simply less impressive because they got something similar at home.

The axe as a whole is used for several jobs, one of them killing. Same for the hammer, the spear, the bow, the knife.. only a sword is always a weapon.

Swords are literally the best weapon ever created. Prove me wrong.

It all depends on the fucking situation you retards. Even today, look how many different types of firearms an army has.

And yet with a dagger against a sword you run into the same problems as sword vs spear. The majority of the time the dagger user will fail to close into effective distance and lose however when he does it's the better close in weapon.

The same happens with sword vs spear. The majority of the time when the sword user closes you're going to get the shit kicked out of you. I know you love spears but don't talk about them like they're good at absolutely everything.

Nobody ever heard of those.

Which is made of more metal, swords, axes or hammers?

As for rarity, you're right though.

well hey people only really talk about Excalibur

>The problem will always be getting within your effective range.
actually, for a duel spear is terrible
don't forget that opponents move all the time
to keep someone at spear range is very hard

wrong, see:

Easier to make, wield, and master plus it has more development under it's belt so swords are usually higher quality as well

Its more that the range that polearms / spears are not useful are the range where you may as well be grappling and shanking anyways. Especially since it was common for polearm and spear users to bash opponents with the other end of the pole.

except the spear is one of the best dueling weapons. The ancient Chinese even said that the Spear is the king of duels.

>And yet with a dagger against a sword you run into the same problems as sword vs spear.
Not when you're in a grapple or in close range. The Roman used the gladius in this exact manner. The gladius was a long dagger.

>The majority of the time when the sword user closes you're going to get the shit kicked out of you.
False. Especially if you are not talking about an actual grapple situation. See

Yes, but you're not carrying one when that assassin or robber pops up during your morning stroll.

I'd say the best thing in a duel is a fucking heavy crossbow but they'd consider that dishonorable wouldn't they. So your point is just as invalid as mine

They actually don't deploy that many different varieties even though many exist. In any time period, there is always a mainstay weapon. In WWI and WWII it was the Garand. In antiquity it was the polearm.

>And yet with a dagger against a sword you run into the same problems as sword vs spear.
Its not the same at all. If you are using a dagger; especially as a knight, you are using it in conjunction with grappling.

Then just figure out who wrote the treatise, and see if they have combat experience, learned from someone who did or from a school founded by someone who did.

It would take too long to load
You'd probably only graze at close range against an aware opponent
They would quickly close the distance in most duels unless it occurs on a football field
You made a dumb post

Swords are good against unarmored opponents or opponents wearing leather or cloth. Against anything else, you want another weapon as you have to half-ass and use the sword as a different kind of weapon, such as turning it into a pseudo spear or hammer by half handing or using the pommel. There's a reason the sword is considered a sidearm, much in the same way a pistol is considered a sidearm today.

So why is it so popular in fiction? Because it got romanticized that way and it was a symbol of the upper class.

>have crossbow and arming sword
literally invincible

I actually practice with spear and I really like it but I know if a swordsman gets into their range you're fucked.

That's incredibly hard to do when you're right up close and the sword user is going to be better at it. Are you forgetting that you can pommel bash?

That post is nice but it over glorifies spears. A sword is always going to be a better close in weapon than a spear just like a dagger will always be better than a sword. By pointing out that the shorter weapon is better close in you're actually supporting my argument.

We're also not comparing dagger vs sword, we're talking about spear vs sword. Stay on topic.

The Garand was adopted in 1937 what in the fuck do you mean the first world war?

Gauntlets are soft on the inside.

youtube.com/watch?v=ojMpTRhHRds

>That's incredibly hard to do when you're right up close and the sword user is going to be better at it. Are you forgetting that you can pommel bash?
..Do you have absolutely zero concept of what grappling is? Holy shit. The point is by the time the dagger is pulled out you are already being grappled.

Except you have to deal with
1. Many of these treatise are not the original version, but rather later editions that was altered by others
2. Authenticating can be nearly impossible
3. Determining whether the source was meant only for duels or warfare is usually unlikely
4. The treatise that do have conformable military experts are almost always devoid of HEMA type techniques and rather focus on implementation of combat technology and military tactics rather than the best way to do some totally radical evasive move against a dude and disarm his sword

are you implying that peasant didn't have anything similar to swords back home
are you retarded?
have you ever heard of knives? have you ever heard of battle/war knives? a swords is just a giant knife, you faggot

>knight
>not knigga
sheeeeeit

This image does a good job of personifying what is wrong with knights as portrayed in fiction actually.

so go and try to cut your fucking belt with a knife and see how that turns out

>muh reach
t. HEMA fag who considers even the slightest tap to be an immediate fight-ending wound

What people think knights are like and what it was actually like is completely different. Everyone is contaminated by medieval fantasy.

you're wrong, a knife is just small sword

add wood shield and this was my loadout in war of the roses since I couldn't melee for shit.

so because you know barely anything about handling a polearm it means it sucks at what you can't do?

>opponents wearing leather
Only in videogames and movies.

>Hating on fists
Why do you hate yourself user?

AND YET WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT USING DAGGERS AGAINST SPEARS

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT USING SPEARS AND SWORDS IN GRAPPLING

Any kind of ranged weapon is considered dishonorable in a duel during the eras we are talking about. There was some random dipshit general who "beat" Guan Yu by shooting with a poisoned arrow. Guan Yu would later have the poison scrapped off of his bone while playing what is basically chess, or so Shu fags would have us believe.

>In WWI and WWII it was the Garand.
>WWI
>Garand
And they've used many different types of firearms for different situations for a century now. Just because the basic rifle most grunts carry is a M4 or it's derivatives doesn't mean the SAW240 or DMR's aren't used heavily.

Sure.. and a spear is just a knife with a long handle, an axe is a knife with a large cutting side, a bow shoots long knives. Come on now.

No, I just know that a sword is better in CQC than a spear. It always was and always will be. If it wasn't what would be the point of carrying a sword at your side. Only weapon you would ever need is a spear. In fact, the only weapon that would ever have been developed would be the spear since it's obviously godking of weapon and good at everything.

Sorry man, but the spear is not superior to the sword in close fighting.

>meme weapons
they were popular then and they are popular now. it isn't about meme its about exposure. its easier to make a sword than a fucking mace AND its more effective

>Using a spear or sword
>In grappling
?????????????????

like what?

Because you can't hang a spear from your belt all day.
Watch any spear vs sword video on youtube, spear wins.

the point of carrying a sword is because they are fucking sidearms that could be carried everywhere in daily life.

You reek of somebody have that no fucking clue what they are talking about.

What is studded leather or lamellar?

>4. The treatise that do have conformable military experts are almost always devoid of HEMA type techniques and rather focus on implementation of combat technology and military tactics rather than the best way to do some totally radical evasive move against a dude and disarm his sword
that seem more like strategy than martial arts so it would make sense for it to be absent in HEMA

>If it wasn't what would be the point of carrying a sword at your side.
It was both more cumbersome for everyday usage and not socially acceptable due to being seen as a weapon of war rather than a personal defense tool. This has been repeated multiple times in this very topic at this point.

>britwanking

what's that?

Think of it as a crowbar for people.

have you ever seen hardened leather
I don't think you have.

sure some fucking spandex pants made of soft leather aint gonna protect shit, but hardened leather is pretty hard. some nigga even makes chairs of hardened leather
youtube.com/watch?v=VAb7SW1nIRk

the strength of hardened leather is just below bronze plate.

My guess is it's because at times it was the only sword you saw in movies that had guns in them and then there were some super powered characters slicing speeding bullets with them, this wasn't helped at all by anime doing it too.
Then internets resident weeaboos started going on about how katanas were fine weapons made by master sword smiths and how they were folded a thousand times to make the blade stronger and yaba daba doo, you get the picture, the thousand times folded meme was born.

Guns>everything

Mostly fiction. Never seen widespread use.

And it was barely used. It's hard to make and inflexible. A gambison works better.

You know that's false as you literally just said the Mongols, Japanese, Chinese, etc. didn't use armor.

And yet soldiers would still carry swords into battle as a secondary weapon. Once the enemy gets past your spear they break out the swords because it's simply better at close range fighting.

No shit, except if you watch any of those videos you can see that when the swordsman gets in close the spearman loses.

Daring to say that some things british made were better than the german counterparts.

>If you can get close enough
That's like saying "Boy, those archers are dead as soon as me and my trusted sword get on top of that wall".

>englishmen
>not germans

the term "british" is a complete misnomer

>Once the enemy gets past your spear they break out the swords because it's simply better at close range fighting.
That completely depends on the type of spear or polearm they were using. You do realize that not all spears are Pikes right?

holy shit, you really have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

And that's what we've been talking about this entire fucking time. This literally started out as a swords vs spears in close fighting discussion.

Did you miss me saying swords are better in close range but they have trouble getting to that range earlier? Are you literally retarded?

I assumed we were talking Europe here.

>damage control

face it, fag, swords are specialized knives, like you claim war axes to be specialized axes. no reason to make an exception for swords.

you can also wear axes, maces, hammers and daggers on your belt pretty easility bruh

>No shit, except if you watch any of those videos you can see that when the swordsman gets in close the spearman loses.
Yep, but in most fights it never comes to that. Thus, spear >sword.

You'd have to be using a very short spear to be good at close fighting at which point you've given up the advantages of a spear and gained none of the advantages of the sword.

Ask anyone else if swords are better in close fighting than spears and you'll get the same fucking answer. Only a retard would think the spear is better at it.

>Of course you can grab the enemy blade.
1.You can't do that without injuring your hand seriously
2.It's much harder to do it because it's much shorter than a spear

>not combining your sword and your club

No i am just an user who jumps into conversations without bothering to read the earlier posts.

I am not a very clever man.

Halberds.

actually we have been talking about the issue where vidya worlds have wayyyyyy to many swords in their worlds

Swords have prestige because they're more expensive to produce, and were more often used as a personal defence weapon. A spear is a more effective weapon both on the battlefield and in duels, but it's harder to carry one around day to day.

>using this as a club
the obsidian would shatter

>asking braindead normalfags and basement dwellers for information on weapon handling

this is the actual answer to OP's question, it's retarded it took 400 posts for somebody to say it

...

Guns are the best weapon
A single gunman could destroy an entire army of swordsmen
Prove me wrong
Protip:You can't

>if everyone assumes it's true, it must be! especially when they have exactly 0 experience with it

That's fair

Halberds are not short weapons. You run into the same issue of swords being better in close fighting.

>You'd have to be using a very short spear to be good at close fighting
You can... Change grip you know. There were many spears and polearms that were designed specifically for dueling. perhaps most obviously the Pollaxe which was designed for knight combat.

Two things are required for this though.
Enough ammo and position to which swordmen cant get in.

What gun, and what era swordsmen?

Corrupted the sacred club with pleb swords.

What the fuck does 'powerful' mean to you exactly?

>Daggers are much better in very close fighting than swords.
No they're not because you can't use them defensively

They're good for surprise stealth kills because you can hide them very well and unsheathe them at an incredible speed but they're shit-tier for duels

1) which is more important, your hand or your life?
2) How does its shortness make grabbing it harder.

I don't assume it's true, I know it's true. Try practicing with spear vs sword and you'll very quickly see that spears are awful once the swordsman gets in range. If you've let the swordsman close distance you've failed.

>you just a nigga with a garden hose

All you need to do is change the fucking grip. Not to mention the polearms body is still a weapon in itself with the way it could be swung, especially with the superior leverage.

>people still think swords were used as anything other than secondary or even tertiary back up weapons

wew

>They're good for surprise stealth kills because you can hide them very well and unsheathe them at an incredible speed
We're not talking about vidya, son

And if you change your grip the sword is still better in close fighting being, shorter, bladed along the majority of it's length rather than at the tip, and usually able to be wielded effectively one handed. Changing your grip doesn't change these deficiencies.

Best weapon

>I don't know what I am talking about
Not even certain if you know what you mean by "close fighting" at this point. Polearms tended to be superior at taking down opponents due to superior leverage and having hooking implements. A prone enemy is a dead enemy.

It's always hilarious how swordfags literally don't know anything about military history yet always try to argue about it

Unlike hammers, axes, spears, and other gear that was more common, swords were fairly expensive to make and showed that the person wielding it was a big dick motherfucker who actually knew how to use weapons, or was rich and important. So like all things carried by masters or rich people, swords became a staple of the hero or Villian or important figures, and after a few 100 years of this clichè it just became mandatory that the weapon of choice for a warrior is a sword

Swords=noble
Most other weapons=peasent

>muh long bow

It would eventually, yeah, but not immediately. If it broke after one hit then it wouldn't be an extremely common weapon all across the entirety of central America going back for for over a thousand years and we wouldn't have a fuck ton of accounts about it both from the spainish and the natives of it being extremely effective

Obisdian is fragile but it's not THAT fragile.

Look, here's a spic who sells cheap, historically inaccurate machuaitl replicas cutting a chicken in half with one of his and cracking the table the chicken was set on, and even that resulted in zero damage to the obsidian blades on the weapon: youtube.com/watch?v=edHxcPz3Vm8
Likewise, equally historically inaccurate and shittily made replicas used in deadliest warrior cut throiugh balistics gel torso's/horse heads with bone in them and rushes/chopped the bone with only 1-2 of the razors breaking.

An actual macuahuitl would be much more well made then those so yeah, they could be swung and do damage without becoming unusable

that's because you know nothing about polearm combat.

That's like claiming martial arts suck you still get your ass handed by a thug after practicing it.

>sword on hip
b-b-b-b-b-b-but why aren't they using their swords at that range

Love these things as an idea, but I'd be too worried those teeth would shatter way too easily. I guess you could learn to strike in such a way as to not stress them too much, with practice. I'd love to see one used in a realistic fashion. I think I can only recall Kotal Kohn in MKX using one, and his feats are obviously a little over the top.

I like my blunt weapons as simple and robust as possible.

This is completely correct. Swords are the best.
Only peasant blooded are desperately arguing otherwise.

...

it was used for cutting, not as a fucking mace. im saying it would shatter if used as a mace

see
Also even if they did break in the middle of combat, you still have huge ass two handed club you could bash people's heads in with

WHAT ABOUT GLORIOUS NIPPON STEEL

That's not the case at all:

youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8&feature=player_embedded

>all that shit that would never work in a real fight that requires incredibly specific telegraphed setups
It's like watching two people mutually masturbate

You don't even need gauntlets to hold a sword by the blade. You just have to position your hand correctly. As long as you don't slide you hand down the blade you'll be fine.

It was specifically used as both.

Literally half the function of the weapon beyond killing people was to shatter people's legs or give them a concussion without killing them if the opportunity arose so you could capture them as a war prisoner, bring them back with you, and sacrifice them

The aztecs set up entire battles ahead of time LITTERALLY just for this purpose called flower wars

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_war

Do your research

Probably because it's a book on polearm fighting and not sword fighting?

And yet that treatise is showing people fighting at polearm distance and not sword distance. It's also a book on how to fight with polearms against people with polearms. That doesn't change the fact that once the sword wielder gets into his effective range the sword is superior to a polearm. The sword is simply a better close weapon.

while we are at it, lets have the
>center grip vs strapped shield fight aswell

almost every game has only strapped shields. I think I have never seen center grip shields.

youtube.com/watch?v=UrdRZ31Oj_4

>jealous peasant mad he can only mutually masturbate with his cattle and chickens

wrong, the spear can still change directions much more easily than a sword in close combat with barely any motion, and it still have the parrying advantage with leverage.
Not to mention the polearm body itself is a weapon.

I wonder what a macuahuitl with steel teeth would be like.

Because axes and hammers are tools, not weapons.

It's because Japan has a culture of sword you dumbass
There used to be samurai's practicing it as a form of art and beauty and all that romantic junk way before movies were ever invented

That's how Japanese swords got their mythical mystic status

again you are making claims of sword's being 'better' close range weapon with no actual arguments.

Well, steel is obviously way more durable then obisdian, but it's also not as sharp (pic related)

Also, most of the damage to the weapon would probably be the razors falling off, not just breaking

so I imagine it wouldn't really be much of an improvement

>polearm distance and not sword distance
Just barely outside extended arms length is... Polearm distance? I suppose I never quite appreciated how limited swords truly are.

No, they glorified swords after the Shogun basically neutered their class with all the family hostage control and land control. And with the sword basically becoming they only weapon they could legally carry in public.
So naturally the sword eventually came to take up much more of the japanese public consciously as they began to glorify it even more. It is no accident that the concept of Bushido was also developed around the time the Samurai class became neutered, as many felt their purpose being useless and developed a new philosophy in accordance with their current state.

1)Injuring your hand leaves you disadvantaged in battle moron and since you use the sword with one hand it's much easier to move the rest of your body to kick or punch your foe away while not letting go of your sword if your sword does get caught

2) Are you retarded?

>We're not talking about vidya
>This is a thread on Cred Forums
Either way you can't argue my post at all since it's correct

I remember watching that video and he says that the sword is better closer in. Why post something that's supposed to disprove what I said and instead end up helping me?

He starts talking about being at a disadvantage in close range at 5 minutes in. The whole point of shortening your reach is to be able to retreat and keep the swordsman at range.

>Read this post
>Read rest of thread
>mfw

You seem to have pretty selective hearing:

"If you're fighting in a small space... The dagger is probably the best weapon."
"The sword in most periods of history is a secondary weapon. May even be a teritary weapon in fact. But its not usually a primary weapon."
"Generally speaking througout history people who carried swords had as their first weapon a poleweapon... Or a missile weapon of some sort."
"Well in a straight up fight... Generally speaking the spear has the advantage. Most of you who have done sparring... Will know that the polearm generally speaking has the advantage."
"In short, why is the spear or polearm superior to the sword?"

What is a battleaxe, warhammer?

you really haven't watched the video carefully have you?

also see:

Secondary my ass
The sword was the primary all-purpose default weapon

The spears, bows, hammers etc. were specialized weapons

LOL a spear can much more easily be grabbed than a sword can in close combat

Spear in close combat is a fucking meme

A often forgotten fact that a polearm wielder actually wants to GET EVEN CLOSER to a sword wielder in close combat to nullify much of the sword's optimal range.

see: also: youtube.com/watch?v=ayCSOXyaMZY&feature=youtu.be&t=37

Just get a chainsaw at this point

>grabbing meme

You seriously know fucking nothing about melee weapon combat.

When you extend the spear to strike you lose the parrying advantage. It's much easier to take a thrust off line than it is to take a cut off line because all the force of the blow is concentrated forwards. Yes, you can push a sword point off line with a spear but you can also do that to a spear with a sword.

The advantages of the spear lie in reach and being able to keep the enemy at a longer distance than a sword can strike at. Once the swordsman closes distance chances are he's striking at you and he'll hit you before you can retract and strike again. Not to mention that the sword is much better at helping you grapple than a spear is. The spear's length, usually it's advantage, become a disadvantage once the distance is closed because it's not meant for that kind of fight. The sword blade is simply superior than a polearm shaft at hurting someone.

Cutting the person's arms, hands or other parts of his body is simply better at disabling someone than hitting them with the shaft of a spear.

The sword, being shorter, is much better suited to fighting at short ranges.

1) So, you would rather die than grab a sword. And what is that shit you are blabbing about kicking or punching. What has that got to do with anything. Stop your tangent.

2)perhaps I am retarded? so, do explain to me why do you think that grabbing a sword is harder than grabbing a spear.

This doesn't really refute any of what I was saying
Japan still has a culture of sword...it doesn't matter how it happened

And all of the reason he listed has to do with range. Seeing as this discussion is the suitability of spears against swords in close fighting none of that has any bearing on the spear being better at range.

Everything he says is about keeping the swordsman at distance and not letting them into range.

>Let's just ignore that 90% of the spear is made of wood
Lmao-ing at your life

That the Japanese sword culture developed post-Sengoku peace era should be telling in itself. Nobunaga's assassination was an even bigger tragedy than many realize I suppose.

wrong the leverage is still there, and you are still forgetting about the polearm body since it was still commonly used to parry or block even against cutting weapons.

Grappling a spear is still unfeasible since you are still working against the body and leverage that you'll ruin your balance. and reaching out still makes you vulnerable as hell to counters, since even at close range a spear can change directions in a fraction of a time.

also see:

1) Are you fucking retarded? I just said that you can't grab a sword without injuring your head which severely disadvantages you in battle(unlike a spear which is made of mostly wood which you can grab without injuring yourself)
>What has that got to do with anything?
Everything? This is not fencing retard...in a real close combat battle you use everything you can. For that reason "one-handed weapons" destroy "two-handed weapons" such as spears

2. They're shorter you fucking moron which makes them way harder to grab than spears

thanks for proving his point that you know nothing about melee combat. Especially how little you know about how difficult it is to actually cut even a well made wooden shaft. Not to mention, not all polearms are wooden.

>>Now, many might think that the solution to this is to cut off the spear’s head, but this is not at simple or easy as it might seem. The blow itself would be difficult to land on the ever moving spear, but even beyond that, it would take significant force, meaning that the blade itself would need to be heavy (and therefore harder to land a blow with) and the perfect angle to prevent it from simply bouncing away. This is a likely occurrence, especially when one considers that the spear is suspended in the air, not supported firmly from underneath. In addition to that, as shown in the picture below, many spears or other polearms had metal langets running down the sides (or were made entirely out of metal), resulting in almost zero chance of the swordsman effectively carrying out a decapitation

Sasaki Kojiro really got punk'd by Musashi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasaki_Kojirō

>For that reason "one-handed weapons" destroy "two-handed weapons" such as spears
Wat. Let me guess you love dual wielding too? You do realize there are two-handed swords right?

>thanks for proving his point that you know nothing about melee combat
I know that a spear is shit-tier for close combat
Heck any moron knows that lmao

>"two-handed weapons" such as spears
About that...

So man people in this thread forget that the polearm body is a weapon, and used for blocking too.

All Dark Souls shields are center grip, at least all of them in 2 are. Never cared for that style myself.

>You do realize there are two-handed swords right?
Yes but nobody was talking about those now were they?

When people talk about swords they're usually referring to one-handed swords

Two-handed swords are much less flexible for close combat and you're better off with a spear

So in other words you have no appreciation for leverage, range, and don't know shit about swords either? OK.

>shit-tier grip
wow it's useless
sword and shield is way better

if you're gonna use a spear use a 2-handed one or don't even bother

Japanese sword culture got an actual combat revival during the boshin war, many schools got to test their things and many got out pretty ok (Jikishinkage-ryu, Hokushin Itto-ryu, Tennen Rishin-ryu, Kyoshin Meichi-ryu).

Actually I'm schooling the fuck out of you at every corner
Sit the fuck down kid

Are you insinuating that using a spear with one hand is somehow difficult and would make it ineffective in combat? Because if so you're a moron.

You don't even have any arguments aside from assertions.

>A wooden shaft is much more difficult to break than a sword. Swords are sharp and strong, but brittle. They have a weakness along the flat side which is why they invented the sword breaker which looks like a sword with heavy notches in it. The sword is swung on it's strong side (the blade) and catches in the notches. Then the sword breaker twists along it's weak side (the flat) and breaks the sword in half.

Your only chance to break a spear haft is to catch it against a wall or rock and then apply enough pressure to the shaft to break it. Difference is, you'll only be able to break the shaft at it's weakest point (the middle). And if you do? The spear can still be picked up and used as a spear, only shorter.

>Once again I don't know what the fuck I am talking about!
youtube.com/watch?v=tY3GtNoxAdM

Sword assholes really are the worst.

It's definitely harder then using a sword in close combat

And it's even easier to grab because it's harder to move it around with one hand

>I'm using big words
>That will make me look smart and qualified

>I'll show him
>Posts youtube videos of 2 basement dwellers being retards
lmao you contrarian faggots are hilarious

>*By not fully extending the spear you create a space I call the death zone. To brush aside the spear requires entering this zone (which is in easy reach of the spear) and then pushing it aside. The spear man simply stabs you as you advance.

>Also brushing a spear away is not as easy as people make it sound (I tested this with some friends today). The spear acts as a great lever and the spear pushes the sword down exposing the swordsman. We found that the swordsman HAD to use two hands to push the spear. If that is the case he couldn't be holding a shield (this may be negated by your left arm technique.)

>If the spear man has room to move back (unlikely in a battle, but in single combat very likely.) I maintain that it is nearly impossible for a swordsman to win. Even with extensive skill and practice. Obviously heavy armor and shields gave the swordsmen a great advantage. But that is not the topic of discussion.

>I'm not even trying anymore because I'm full of shit
OK

1)
>without injuring your head
I take it, you mistyped "hand" as "head". A wound in your palm doesn't really disadvantage you. It might be highly uncomfortable, but not a disadvantage. Humans are not fucking soap bubbles that pop with a single wound.
>in a real close combat battle you use everything you can. For that reason "one-handed weapons" destroy "two-handed weapons" such as spears
so in REAL close combat you use everything except grabbing your opponents sword. lol
and your whole argument stands on a person grabbing onto a blade with their fingery palm. there are other ways to grab a blade.

2)Why would anyone wielding a spear grab a sword anyways? Only situation where an opening to grab a sword opens is when a swordman has gotten in range to strike at the spearman.

There are Mods with Flails.

Holy shit, that video made me see spear and shield in a whole new light. That guy has amazing technique
>the part of the video where he just casually parries everything with a lazy overhand grip
Sick