Swords vs guns

This has began the discussion between swords and guns which I think has began to become interesting, and so without derailing that thread too much I think I will start a discussion here.

Just some point to start off the discussion:

1) Swords are not sharp clubs. Swords have a center of balance much closer to the hilt/where your hand is than clubs, and thus when you swing them they are "lively", as in they are far more wieldy than clubs. In fact, calling a sword "a club" means that the sword is made poorly and has a subtext of questioning the smith's skill.

2) Swords are not knives. When swordsman fight properly with swords they maintain their distance: not too far so that the swords will never reach their target, but not so close as to negate the swords' reach. In fact, with equal amount of training time a knifeman will always lose to a swordsman, assuming everything equal, just because of reach.

3) Swords are not common in the army in the olden days: they are expensive to make, and takes a lot of time to train, and thus only nobles and the rich can have them. Which is the reason why they became a fashion statement and evolved into the smallsword, which is also known as the dress sword.

Also, in reply to this post:

Thing is though, when comparing two skill sets you need to have a similar outcome in order for it to be comparable: otherwise you end up with "it is easier to train a truck driver and a gunsman". And given that swords and guns are weapons, which are at the end of the day tools used for battle, the point of comparison would be effectiveness for battlefield purposes- how much training would a swordsman need to be as effective as a gunsman. And given that swords are such lousy weapons compared to guns, the answer would be "lots more, if possible at all".

@Tobias Drake on other thread: ...sword as peasants' weapons? Isn't it normally that it's polearms that are considered as peasants' weapons?

Still, I don't exactly understand the purpose of this thread...when are we talking about? I mean, nowadays wielding sword are pretty much death sentence if you are not close to the other guy at all...or are we talking about much older guns?

edited 15th Oct '13 11:40:57 PM by onyhow

Give me cute or give me...something?

Well, the main purpose was to take the discussion here so as not to derail the other thread. I was talking about in general, so up to and including modern times.

The point is less about the effectiveness of swords vs gun but rather a discussion of the skills involved in using them.

edited 15th Oct '13 11:45:22 PM by IraTheSquire

Since when could a guy who made a living poking at dirt with a stick afford all the iron needed to make a decent sword?

But that's a story for another time.

^ Don't ask me, ask Tobias...

Give me cute or give me...something?

I definitely agree that the discussion was becoming interesting (and I too was starting to become a bit wary about derailing).

On my side of the fence, I see your points and raise you the following:

1. Guns are not all the same: Despite common belief, every gun does not behave the same way. Leaving aside obvious differences in rate of fire, calibre, weight, and size, a gun may also differ in the actual operation of its system (short stroke/long stroke, direct impingement - and, of course, the good old bolt action and other methods) and configuration (bullpup, for example), not to mention how it is loaded (feeding by hand, magazine*

, belt fed). Recoil varies too. And this is leaving aside the wide variety of attachments! Yet if many were to be believed, a revolver is a pistol is a bolt action rifle is a submachine gun is a light machine gun is an assault rifle is an anti-materiel rifle is a recoilless rifle*

Yes, I know this is technically not a gun in the sense most people think of it, but stick with me here for humour's sake =P

.

2. Guns require more technique than you think: If you ask Joe B. Average, all you have to do with a gun is point and shoot, right? Bzzzzzt! Different firearms require different techniques, and they are not all accurate in all situations. If you try to fire an anti-materiel rifle from a standing position and without the proper bracing, well, I hope you like doing serious damage to your shoulder/arm (and missing the target to boot). A different stance is required for handling a pistol, and another one necessary for an assault rifle.

That aside, if you wish to be accurate you cannot just spray and pray. You must aim down the sights, steady yourself, quite possibly control your breathing, and if necessary put a sufficient amount of lead on to the target. Of course, it's also a good idea to follow-through on pulling the trigger.*

And there are also techniques you need to learn in case the gun has a stoppage or fails to cycle/cycle properly.

There are also specific techniques for various situations.

---

I should note that the main thrust of my argument isn't that it requires more skill to use firearms, but rather that they take more skill than most people think it does.

Locking you up on radar since '09

In addition to all of that, there's also all these gun safety rules you need to take into account if you want to avoid literally shooting yourself in the foot. Or your friend, even.

This "faculty lot" you speak of sounds like a place of great power...

The question is: even with all of that for gun training, does sword training still takes more time and effort?

Give me cute or give me...something?

The question needs clarification. More time end effort for... what, exactly?

This "faculty lot" you speak of sounds like a place of great power...

Though I may be putting words in his mouth, I presume he means "more time and effort" to produce a reasonably competent combatant with their chosen weapon.

And as I said above, I think that would probably be the case for the sword; the main point of my arguments is that guns aren't mere "point and shoot" type weapons, not that they're more tricky to use than swords.

Locking you up on radar since '09

@ Flanker: All good points and I agree with the sentiment. Just to put extra point for my (sword) side, here are the skills involved when using a sword:

1) maintaining the right distance close enough so that you can reasonably reach the target but far enough so that you opponent cannot just hit you before you can react (pretty much far enough that he needs to step forward to be close enough to hit you. People with naturally longer arms has a very BIG advantage with this). This is something that you can only learn by experience (and being hit, a lot).

2) maintains edge alignment and keeping yourself safe while swinging the sword: now this is two things:

- you need to align the edge properly for the sword to cut, or else you won't cut properly (or not cut at all) and at worse, you break your sword. This is made hard by the fact that people treat swords like clubs (I am looking at you, Tobias), which is counterproductive (it's actually easier to relax and "let the sword do its work" as I can it, but that's still easier said than done). Not to mention you also need to push or pull the sword to cut as well (sword is not an axe: you don't hack with a sword).

- when you fight with a sword it is not just your weapon: it is also your shield (unless you actually DO have a shield, but that's another kettle of fish). Therefore when you attack with your sword, you must protect yourself with it at the same time. You do this by: 1) swinging your sword first before you move so that every part of you is behind the sword so that your opponent needs to deal with the threat you made (assuming they are not suicidal), and 2) get your sword in the way of your opponent's first before swinging (known as closing the line), which can be a difference of a centimeter of where you move your sword to before attacking (especially true for rapier fencing, in which case it's more than half the time). Not doing any one of those (and assuming your opponent does) means you get hit. Both sides not doing the same means double-hits, which according to historical records happened all the time with rapiers (remember that "difference of 1 cm" thing?).

edited 16th Oct '13 4:15:38 AM by IraTheSquire

That's the first I've heard of this. You learn something new every day.

This "faculty lot" you speak of sounds like a place of great power...

As for a comparison between the two, I'm not as biased as people might think, I actually practiced european fencing for a few years.

However, if you're looking at any sort of organized engagement, swords are vastly inferior to guns for the same reason the OP mentioned that knives are inferior to swords in most instances.

The reason the gun supplanted the bow in the black powder era was because of training. Being proficient with a bow required years of practice, you could train someone to be an expert rifleman within a month or two of constant training. You have longer reach, figuring arc is virtually non existent at combat distances, et cetera.

If I pitted 6 dudes with shotguns against 6 master swordsmen, I'd bet money on the shotgunners. Simply because they would have such a ridiculous advantage when it comes to reach. Becoming well versed in using a sword takes a long time, and requires you to get into pretty good shape in order to close with the enemy and attack with the most efficient economy of effort.

It's just not really a valid comparison, in combat odds are you will see your enemy long before you are in bladed weapon range. From a tactical perspective, the challenges of getting into that range without being shot to use a sword are really poor compared to the odds of seeing your enemy and shooting them in the chest several times as they come at you, not to even mention shooting someone from a distance when they are unaware.

This.

English longbowmen had to be raised, not trained. They'd start practicing whilst they were around five or six, drawing smaller bows, and they would be keep training throughout their development and puberty. In some sense, English longbowmen were the first super soldiers: the skeletons of English archers are actually noticeably different to normal ones, with enlarged left arms and bone spurs in the wrist and shoulder. These were to accomodate the huge muscles needed to draw the weapon: Modern longbows have a draw weight of 60lbs, Mediaeval hunting bows were around 50-60lbs; the longbows recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose are estimated to have had an original draw weight of 150-60lbs.

Some English villages still have a street or square called "The Butts", because that was the old English name for the communal targets the peasantry were required - under the Assizes and Arms Act 1252 - to train at to maintain proficiency. To get an idea of the longbow's power, The Duke Of Wellington tried to raise a corps of archers during the Peninsular War, but, to his dismay, found too few men still able to draw the weapon. Had he managed, it would have been carnage - the most elite fusilier could manage, at the absolute most, six rounds a minute, a longbowman could manage more than twice that.

True: until the invention of the repeating rifle, the longbow was still, in terms of rate of fire at least, the killiest ranged weapon about.

edited 16th Oct '13 7:42:08 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Then after Napoleonic Wars gun tech start moving on quickly and after you got things like breech loading rifle and metal cartridge bows are pretty much inferior to guns in practically every way (well except the sound thus stealth kill)

@Flanker 66: Yes

edited 16th Oct '13 7:23:21 AM by onyhow

Give me cute or give me...something?

You know, all these "swords vs guns" threads we've had on these fora make me think, after all the work that was needed to ridicule the idea that katana is some sort of magical cutting-tanks-in-half crap, I did not expect all the sad weaboos to move to the European fencing camp.

"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"

^

Hey hey hey, watch it. Most fencers aren't weeaboos.

I really miss fencing, I'm thinking about getting back into it. It was excellent cardio, and a lot of fun at the same time. We had a knife fighting combatives course that sort of re-ignited my passion for it recently.

edited 16th Oct '13 8:41:12 AM by Barkey

You should know I know that. It's just, if this is going to be yet another thread with some... let's be delicate, misguided folks, ganging up on you or some other hapless military guy for daring to imply that a modern military formation would not be smashed to pieces by a knight and his longsword of destruction, then I'll lose what I managed to salvage of my liking for the hobby since the last one of these threads.

Edit reason: typo

edited 16th Oct '13 8:49:01 AM by lordGacek

"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"

For some reason I highly doubt that is going to happen here.

I'm not saying it's impossible in todays conflicts to kill someone with a sword, just extremely unlikely. Not in a war anyway. In a more gang-centric situation? Sure.

Hell, I've always wanted a cane-sword. Classy.

Okay, I admit, I misremembered the sword's place in history.

Swords are still closer to sharpened clubs than to the "slash people in half, cut doors open, impale!" depiction commonly seen in fiction, but it also depends on the blade. When I think of swords, I think of medieval broadswords.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Yeah, broadswords were more about the weight than the sharpness, in contrast to scimitars, katanas, and other weapons which rely on the edge or point.

I will take it to mean that swords were closer to real weapons than fictional.

Edit reason: damn ninjas.

edited 16th Oct '13 9:11:20 AM by lordGacek

"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"

Well, the original context was that neither swords nor guns are accurately portrayed in fiction.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Hmmm. I've both fenced and shot, although I'm merely "relatively competent" at shooting and "not horrible" at fencing.

The short version is, it took me far longer (in both elapsed time from when I started learning, and actual practice and drill time spent) to reach "not horrible" at fencing than it did to reach "relatively competent" shooting.

edited 16th Oct '13 9:45:55 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I think the real fictional appeal of swords is that they make the combat more intimate, for lack of a better word. With a gun, you can keep some distance physically and psychologically. The connection you have to the death, as far as you see, is pulling the trigger and sending an invisible shard of death at them. You wouldn't feel the impact of the bullet. With the sword, you would feel the steel biting into the person's flesh, feel and smell the blood gushing from the wound onto your blade, see the light dim from his eyes, etc.

Edit to clarify.

edited 16th Oct '13 10:12:12 AM by TomoeMichieru

Swordplay and writing blog. Purveyor of weeaboo fightin' magic.