TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Swords vs guns

Go To

Wolf1066 Crazy Kiwi from New Zealand (Veteran) Relationship Status: Dancing with myself
Crazy Kiwi
#76: Oct 17th 2013 at 3:47:57 PM

[up][up]Sorry for misunderstanding your post, I thought you meant non-lethal ritual.

However, recent history seems to show that people aren't interested in "gentlemanly" settling of quarrels in that manner. The only time I've heard of swords or sword-like weapons being used here in recent times, they were used solely because of a lack of access to firearms and they were not "duels", they were unilateral attacks on unarmed people - person was attacked by someone with a reproduction katana, judge was attacked by a low-level hood with a machete.

They were not the formalised "bring your second and meet me at the churchyard at dawn" of yesteryear, they were "fuck you, I'm going to get you". If either of those punks had been able to get a gun, it would've been reported as a shooting, not a blade attack.

Frankly, I can't see our society developing into something where ritualised duels were permitted or where the average person in the street would have the honour to fight that way.

At the time people were settling "honour" with swords rather than firearms, firearms were single-shot and the combatants were members of a social elite who lived by an ideal of "sporting" behaviour.

The average punk in the street didn't have a sword - couldn't afford weapons and being caught with a stolen one would generally mean death by hanging - so the only real combatants would be other members of that social elite.

The fact you had a sword was a deterent to any lower-class person armed with only a knife or stick and lacking in the obvious combat training that the wearing of a sword suggests (and if they weren't deterred, you were a trained swordsmen while this was just some untraind oik with a stick or a knife).

So, unless we went back to a class-based society where the rich had the training to use swords effectively - as well as the legal right to kill/maim/incapacitate each other over disagreements - and the poor/gang-affiliated/criminally-inclined were completely disarmed, sword fighting would not be viable.

Could you seriously imagine trash like the Bloods and Crips and other gangs settling their differences by gentlemanly conduct with swords?

I can't even imagine a large number of our rich classes being that honourable.

edited 17th Oct '13 3:52:51 PM by Wolf1066

IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#77: Oct 17th 2013 at 4:03:02 PM

In fact, Alfred Hutton in his "Sword and the Century" noted that there are many historical records of people showing up to rapier duels with steel-reamed hats or plate armour underneath their shirt or brought their friends along (for one-on-one duels). He said that actual, proper, honorable private duels are not common.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#78: Oct 17th 2013 at 5:15:27 PM

Ira: The armor may have become reasonably effective but again not fully proof against.

Even then the sword did not slowly disappear at all. It got smaller and changed shape and form.

It remained in the hands of the cavalry as a weapon of choice right up into WWII in some armies. Not that, that was a particularly good idea in the long run but it happened none the less.

The Curiass survived about two or three weeks into WWI before it as ditched and used for parades only.

The big ole long swords went the way of the Dodo though. They were made obsolete by a lack of the armor they were meant to fight against and were displaced by newer weapons and newer methods of war.

Kind of funny really swords wound up about as large as they started out. They increased in size until we had the various long swords and then shrank back down in size into the one handers like sabers and small swords.

Hell the Polish had some success still using swords along side bolt action rifles, grenades, and pistols against German infantry in WWII.

Ultimately they lost putting an end to the cavalry saber as a wepaon of war.

De marquis: They wouldn't stay nice as Ira noted. The US outlawed dueling for a good reason. Something about hot tempered politicians either being injured or killed in duels or doing the same in kind to others including other politicians.

edited 17th Oct '13 5:17:21 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#79: Oct 17th 2013 at 5:27:31 PM

[up] I can imagine the entire tea party challenging the entire democratic side of congress to a duel if it was still legal.

I'm baaaaaaack
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#80: Oct 17th 2013 at 5:45:03 PM

@ Tuefel:

The armor may have become reasonably effective but again not fully proof against.

Armour is obviously not completely sword-proof or else we wouldn't have armoured sword-fighting at all. Just that armour changes the whole ballgame to the point that armoured swordfighting is entirely different kettle of fish from unarmoured version.

Even then the sword did not slowly disappear at all. It got smaller and changed shape and form.

It remained in the hands of the cavalry as a weapon of choice right up into WWII in some armies. Not that, that was a particularly good idea in the long run but it happened none the less.

The Curiass survived about two or three weeks into WWI before it as ditched and used for parades only.

The big ole long swords went the way of the Dodo though. They were made obsolete by a lack of the armor they were meant to fight against and were displaced by newer weapons and newer methods of war.

Kind of funny really swords wound up about as large as they started out. They increased in size until we had the various long swords and then shrank back down in size into the one handers like sabers and small swords.

Hell the Polish had some success still using swords along side bolt action rifles, grenades, and pistols against German infantry in WWII.

Ultimately they lost putting an end to the cavalry saber as a wepaon of war.

It's not just the size and form, but also the function and significance.

Smallswords and rapier are examples of swords being "pushed away" from the battlefield and into civilian use. Rapier doesn't work at all in a battlefield (from memory some military were issued with rapier once, and the soldiers ditched them really quickly. Can't remember which country or which battle though), and smallsword is also called the dress-sword for a reason (Hope said that there's only one valid move for the man with a smallsword against a man with a Highland broadsword, which is basically pin the broadsword. He also said that if that did not work, run). In England rapier was basically a fashion statement, popular amongst civilians to that point that Queen Elizabeth I had to issue an order that "all swords above 3 feet in length has to be clipped to that size at the gate of London" because they kept getting in the way (sidenote: according to Swetnam "rapiers are supposed to be 4 feet in length").

Of course, things are never so clear cut and sword did see some use in battle with plate armour, but its importance has greatly dropped due to the presence of improved armour. Armour might not have killed the use of the sword in battle, but it did start the decline, and you see that the sword started to get smaller as soon as armour became good enough that swords start to lose its place as a battlefield weapon. Guns are just the final nail in the coffin.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#81: Oct 17th 2013 at 8:28:14 PM

Ira: No one said unarmoured and armoured sword fighting were the same. That is all on you. However someone did claim there was sword proof armor. At this point you and I agree there is no such thing. It can be resistant and resilient but it was never truly sword proof.

Swords remained a significant weapon with the cavalry one of the swords biggest and most continuous users into the late 19th century. It’s function was to kill and they still did that. They were still used from horse back and on foot. They were still chiefly cutting weapons wielded in a specific fashion to enhance the effectiveness of the weapons design.

Swords have always been in the hands of civilians since well before the rapier and Small sword. In multiple kingdoms peasants were required to own various weapons including swords. Various nobles, lords, and others of similar rank regularly wore and use swords. The same people who wore and used the rapier would have been wearing the older swords in the medieval period. Though their reasons back then were far more practical by comparison.

Rapiers worked just fine on the battlefield and were more than just a fashion statement. At best I call it very questionable that they were supposedly ditched. The various forms of rapier ie the cut and thrust sword were pretty much identical in the military form to the civilian form in the majority of cases.

The dress sword was a battlefield weapon used by both officers and some infantry. The US even had a field manual on using it in 1861 called the Militia Man’s Manual. By the point where they were common though most infantry were carrying bayonets and guns and maybe a knife. Swords remained uncommon for the infantry but were still widely carried by the cavalry.

Hope sounds suspiciously biased. There is always more than one option or technique open to a practiced swordsman. Just because the other guy has a big heavy sword doesn’t mean he is going to win all that easily.

Yes both small swords and rapiers were popular with nobles but both saw common use with the various militaries. At one point in the US wearing a side arm was considered popular. Yet they were also more than just a fashion statement. Pistol dueling was popular for a time as well yet pistols were a very common military weapon. In fact it was the Cavalry who gave rise to the pistol as a military weapon.

Armour did not decrease the importance of the sword at all. They were still very widely used. Long swords didn’t decline in use until around the same time as the most robust plate armour declined in use. Even then infantry were still using swords alongside the pike formations. That is around the middle of the 16th century with early starts to the process beginning around 1520 and lasting up until the start of the 17th century. In fact the sword remained more widely used longer then armour did in the long run. Even when cavalry started ditching the last of the armor they had carried over they still kept their swords.

The one truly big change for swords was the infantry pretty much stopped carrying them after Hanger/Cutlass went out of favour with the military in the late 18th century. The cavalry hung onto their swords until the end of the 19th and into the 20th century with a few hold outs like the Polish Cavalry keeping there’s are as late as WWII.

What decreased the importance of both the Full Plate and the Sword was the mass of peasant and professional troops wielding guns and how the wars were being fought. As the gun became better and better both prominence of armor and sword fell off. Armor fell off far more sharply as swords remained with military widely as a whole for a while longer.

Who watches the watchmen?
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#82: Oct 17th 2013 at 9:17:20 PM

I think you're arguing semantics here to bring out what knowledge you have the history of sword fighting. I'm not calling into question your knowledge of history. Sword proof means exactly the same as bullet proof. Both terms exist. We both understand that it doesn't mean they are 100% effective. Today's armour is going to be LESS sword proof than armour of before because nowhere is it practical to wear steel plate.

The only thing I am adding to this thread is how and why we no longer use swords. I am concerned you are conflating my statements as meaning that I want the US army to field hundreds of thousands of swordsmen to attack America's foes. The only thing that I am stating is that

a) The utility of the sword depends on situation, a situation which has decreased significantly as the years have gone by

b) The cost of a sword, sword proof armour and training is very significant in comparison to anything else today.

If we consider, for instance, a basic Canadian second-class private (ie. a raw recruit), the ramp up time to basic private is about 6 months, which in terms of salary is 15k and in terms of equipment is around 30k and in terms of training costs is another 30-60k (hard to judge because it depends on what you want to include). To be even capable of using a sword requires 6 months time. This effectively doubles the cost of every single soldier you want to deploy and they won't even be any good with the sword, they just happen to not cut themselves with it.

If we combine points A and B, we end up with no swords.

What I see is that people are attempting to argue that because our armour can be really good against swords as a reason to why swords don't exist. That is not true. The reason is that the gun is way cheaper and works in a variety of situations.

Below 30 feet is melee combat even with guns. But, they usually use knives because there's no time to draw a sword. So the unfortunate thing is that a swordsman needs to be in a unique position of having already drawn their blade AND closed distance. Now... this is possible only in urban combat environments; hence the situation in which the sword's utility exceeds that of a pistol or SMG is low.

Canada has actually lost soldiers in Afghanistan to dumb crap like hand axes and other melee weapons in close quarters combat, so it's not like it doesn't happen.

edited 17th Oct '13 9:17:31 PM by breadloaf

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#83: Oct 17th 2013 at 10:55:51 PM

Canada has lost scant few to melee attacks. They have lost more to gun fire, IEDs, RPG's, and other modern weapons. Also a gun is not melee distance at anything under 30 feet. That is quite a bit of ground to cover to reach a ready and alert soldier. Even a surprised soldier has time to react at those kinds of distances. Maybe at 5-6 feet is when melee with rifles are option.

Until you get around 20 feet at a minimum the gunman really doesn't have too much to worry about. A ready gunman starting at 29 feet down to about around 10-15 feet has very good odds of dropping the melee guy even at a dead run before the melee guy even gets close enough to take a swipe.

Even then at around 15-20 feet there are shooting techniques to handle charging ready melee assailants from an unready shooter state against a ready melee assailant. An already alert and ready shooter has a much higher rate of success.

Now getting lucky and having a guy who has no working gun or somehow getting the drop on them from just a few feet away would be a different story. But in those tight quarters you want your rifle butts, knives, hatchets, combat knives, bayonets,tomahawks, and hand to hand. Even machetes can be a bit hard to swing around when you are right on top of someone.

I am willing to bet money the few guys who got in a melee kill got lucky briefly.

edited 17th Oct '13 10:56:08 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#84: Oct 17th 2013 at 11:04:57 PM

Swords remained a significant weapon with the cavalry one of the swords biggest and most continuous users into the late 19th century. It’s function was to kill and they still did that. They were still used from horse back and on foot. They were still chiefly cutting weapons wielded in a specific fashion to enhance the effectiveness of the weapons design.

Of course they were still in use. I was saying that their usage and significance in battlefield has decreased, not disappeared overnight. When you go from "everyone using swords and shields" to "only cavalry is still using swords" that's a decrease in usage. It is used less as opposed to not used at all.

Swords have always been in the hands of civilians since well before the rapier and Small sword. In multiple kingdoms peasants were required to own various weapons including swords. Various nobles, lords, and others of similar rank regularly wore and use swords. The same people who wore and used the rapier would have been wearing the older swords in the medieval period. Though their reasons back then were far more practical by comparison.

True, though that would depend on time and place: Germany, for example, banned wearing of swords amongst civilians, though they got around that by wearing big knives (the messer).

Rapiers worked just fine on the battlefield and were more than just a fashion statement. At best I call it very questionable that they were supposedly ditched. The various forms of rapier ie the cut and thrust sword were pretty much identical in the military form to the civilian form in the majority of cases.

Let me clarify this a bit since "rapier" is not a properly defined term in the first place: when I say "rapier", I mean the ones with the long, slender blade primarily used for thrusting. What you are talking about is (or is closer to) what I'd call the Italian side-sword, or some would call a "cut and thrust sword" (the latter being a modern term), which did see battle. These swords are short, with a wider blade near the hilt, and are capable of doing some serious cutting. The "rapier" that I was referring to is the one that can barely cut (or "cut" with just the tip as opposed to "cutting off limbs" kind of cut). The places where rapiers originate, Italy and Spain, did not have the term "rapier" at all. They were just called "swords".

Note: Obviously things are never so clear cut and there are "rapiers" that are kind of a bit of both, given that the thrusty rapier did not suddenly appear overnight.

The dress sword was a battlefield weapon used by both officers and some infantry. The US even had a field manual on using it in 1861 called the Militia Man’s Manual. By the point where they were common though most infantry were carrying bayonets and guns and maybe a knife. Swords remained uncommon for the infantry but were still widely carried by the cavalry.

Ok, I will give you that one, though I have to ask if the writer is actually expecting the officers to use their dress sword in battle, or did he just include that because the officers were wearing them due to fashion in the first place, so that they are available for tight situations when there's nothing else? Fairbairn, writing around 60 years later, talked about using chairs for defence, and I don't expect chairs to play any significant role in WWII.

Hope sounds suspiciously biased. There is always more than one option or technique open to a practiced swordsman. Just because the other guy has a big heavy sword doesn’t mean he is going to win all that easily.

Well, I don't know as I'm 1) not a military officer in the 18th century and 2) I do not live in an age where I have to depend on my sword skills to survive duels and thus no one around me had been in actual life-or-death duels. Trusting manuals and manuscripts from people who actually taught others swordfighting back in the day when that means life or death is all I can do, else I risk putting a modern perspective into the past which is not good practice to study history.

Yes both small swords and rapiers were popular with nobles but both saw common use with the various militaries. At one point in the US wearing a side arm was considered popular. Yet they were also more than just a fashion statement. Pistol dueling was popular for a time as well yet pistols were a very common military weapon. In fact it was the Cavalry who gave rise to the pistol as a military weapon.

Very true.

Armour did not decrease the importance of the sword at all. They were still very widely used. Long swords didn’t decline in use until around the same time as the most robust plate armour declined in use. Even then infantry were still using swords alongside the pike formations. That is around the middle of the 16th century with early starts to the process beginning around 1520 and lasting up until the start of the 17th century. In fact the sword remained more widely used longer then armour did in the long run. Even when cavalry started ditching the last of the armor they had carried over they still kept their swords. The one truly big change for swords was the infantry pretty much stopped carrying them after Hanger/Cutlass went out of favour with the military in the late 18th century. The cavalry hung onto their swords until the end of the 19th and into the 20th century with a few hold outs like the Polish Cavalry keeping there’s are as late as WWII.

What decreased the importance of both the Full Plate and the Sword was the mass of peasant and professional troops wielding guns and how the wars were being fought. As the gun became better and better both prominence of armor and sword fell off. Armor fell off far more sharply as swords remained with military widely as a whole for a while longer.

Good points, but that does not explain the prominent use of poleaxes as depicted in the artworks from the 15th and 16th century.

edited 17th Oct '13 11:22:38 PM by IraTheSquire

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#85: Oct 17th 2013 at 11:18:51 PM

Just another weapon on the field with a field crowded with weapons. Pole arms are popular because they give you reach. Pikes, spears, axes, warhammers, bows, crossbows, awl pikes, and all manner of melee weapons all existed alongside each other. The sword was still widely favored despite the availability and effectiveness of other weapons in general. For the smuck on foot though. You take what you are given.

Who watches the watchmen?
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#86: Oct 17th 2013 at 11:28:37 PM

Yeah, but according to the link I posted:

A careful examination of 14th-16th century art reveals that warriors were often depicted using poleaxes in mass battle. This suggests that the poleaxe was used more widely than popularly thought. Indeed, the German name for poleaxes fussstreihammer is roughly translated by John Waldman to mean "infantry warhammer," indicating that poleaxes were used by infantry/dismounted forces. Foratio et al. and Blackburn et al. concluded that skull trauma evident on bones from the mass graves of Wisby and Towton are consistent with wounds caused by poleaxes.

Another reference to the amount of skull trauma found in the battle of Towton is here.

edited 17th Oct '13 11:33:24 PM by IraTheSquire

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#87: Oct 18th 2013 at 12:00:21 AM

And? Swords were still oddly popular with the knights and still widely used. I already know how effective the various pole arms were. And your Towton article points out mutilation of the dead and a tidbit like this. "Number 16's injuries are brutal - his jaw had been sliced from his face; a sword-slash had cut through the roots of a molar and, almost certainly severed his tongue." Ug. That is a damn nasty way to go. Have a sword cleave through your face.

They mangled and stripped the bodies and from the sounds of it stabbed and pounded them after the fact.

Few of their limbs had injures could mean they weren't targeted or these men were brutally executed and then mutilated before being dumped into the grave.

Almost entirely head wounds with no wounds elsewhere sounds to me like they were executed after being captured by the victors with the various guys lining up to take a swing at them and mutilating them after. In a pitched battle you hit what you can get. People move in odd ways or miss and cause injuries elsewhere.

It also points out Lords frequently gave out caches of weapons to the peasants especially the pole arm. But other weapons like broad swords and knives were also common.

So pretty much everything I have said so far is holding up. Knights used swords or whatever they wanted to. The Foot sloggers got what they were given and whatever they happened to own. Also that there was a large variety of weapons on the field at the time.

The bodies were mutilated after death by a number of weapons many of them common to foot soldiers as well as knights. Warhammers, swords, maces etc.

The My armoury has a piece of art that shows a multitude of weapons including swords, daggers, axes, pole arms etc. Also there are plenty of manuals pretty much all of which show sword fighting and a plethora of art showing knights in full plate with swords as well.

edited 18th Oct '13 12:06:23 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#88: Oct 18th 2013 at 1:41:25 AM

And? Swords were still oddly popular with the knights and still widely used. I already know how effective the various pole arms were. And your Towton article points out mutilation of the dead and a tidbit like this. "Number 16's injuries are brutal - his jaw had been sliced from his face; a sword-slash had cut through the roots of a molar and, almost certainly severed his tongue." Ug. That is a damn nasty way to go. Have a sword cleave through your face.

They mangled and stripped the bodies and from the sounds of it stabbed and pounded them after the fact.

Few of their limbs had injures could mean they weren't targeted or these men were brutally executed and then mutilated before being dumped into the grave.

Almost entirely head wounds with no wounds elsewhere sounds to me like they were executed after being captured by the victors with the various guys lining up to take a swing at them and mutilating them after. In a pitched battle you hit what you can get. People move in odd ways or miss and cause injuries elsewhere.

It also points out Lords frequently gave out caches of weapons to the peasants especially the pole arm. But other weapons like broad swords and knives were also common.

So pretty much everything I have said so far is holding up. Knights used swords or whatever they wanted to. The Foot sloggers got what they were given and whatever they happened to own. Also that there was a large variety of weapons on the field at the time.

The bit that is interesting in that article is this:

"The skulls had some wounds with distinct shapes," said Novak, "so we worked with weapon profiles [to determine which weapons made which wounds]. Most were square wounds to the head, which are from poleaxes. Because longbows were idealized for that period, there was a tendency prior to analysis to interpret these wounds as longbow wounds."

Now the thing is, assuming that you and I (because I agree too) are right, and these people were executed after the battle, the more probable scenario would be that their executioners would be using whatever was the most convenient at the time, because whatever weapon used for executions did not matter (unless there was a "shaming" involved, but I know of no evidence to show that being killed or mangled by poleaxes to be seen as particularly shameful at that time) as long as they were lethal. Now I think that it is more probable that the bodies were buried at random as opposed to "according to who executed them (because why?)", it is less likely that the bodies were executed by one person. This means it is less likely that they would be executed by mostly one weapon type unless the said weapon type was either the more common one or the more preferred one over the other weapons. This means that it is most likely that poleaxes were either the most common or the most preferred weapon used. Plus:

Individuals such as lords would have a cache of weapons to give out to the locals. Poleaxes were a common weapon among foot soldiers. Not only were they a deadly weapon, their metal-reinforced poles made them effective in defense. Almost everyone would have carried a single-bladed knife, which was used for eating and cooking as well as fighting, and most would have possessed a broadsword.

Which suggests to me that their arsenal consisted of a poleaxe, sword and knife, with the last a weapon that is "normally for other stuff", and combined with the above the poleaxe is the primary weapon/main weapon of choice with the sword as secondary.

Obviously, it could just be a coincidence but I'd like to see some more archeological evidence before I'm convinced.

Now another thing:

The My armoury has a piece of art that shows a multitude of weapons including swords, daggers, axes, pole arms etc. Also there are plenty of manuals pretty much all of which show sword fighting and a plethora of art showing knights in full plate with swords as well.

I'll give you the point about the art in myarmoury.com, but I have to point out that it is possible that a number of manuals were written to show off the writer's skill in arms in order for them to find work, which explains why the sword was picked over other weapons in manuals as it was one of the weapons that took the most skill to train. Finally, for every art showing knights in full plate with swords, how many art shows knights in full plate using poleaxes/mace/other concussive weapons?

What I am saying is that not that plate armour is the only reason why swords got smaller and, eventually, declined from the battlefield. I am saying that it is one of many reasons. And as I said before, guns were the final nail to the coffin.

edited 18th Oct '13 1:44:34 AM by IraTheSquire

demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#89: Oct 18th 2013 at 8:11:22 AM

@Wolf: "However, recent history seems to show that people aren't interested in "gentlemanly" settling of quarrels in that manner. The only time I've heard of swords or sword-like weapons being used here in recent times, they were used solely because of a lack of access to firearms and they were not "duels", they were unilateral attacks on unarmed people"

German Student Dueling Clubs of the late 1800's early 1900's. Granted, they wernt to the death, but they did make sword fighting popular in an era of firearms, which is what this thread is concerned with.

"Frankly, I can't see our society developing into something where ritualised duels were permitted or where the average person in the street would have the honour to fight that way."

Probably not, but we're speculating here. The question is what could bring swords back, and the only thing I see is a sea change in cultural attitudes toward dueling (it certainly wouldn't be functional considerations).

"So, unless we went back to a class-based society where the rich had the training to use swords effectively - as well as the legal right to kill/maim/incapacitate each other over disagreements - and the poor/gang-affiliated/criminally-inclined were completely disarmed, sword fighting would not be viable."

So... we are in agreement then?

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Wolf1066 Crazy Kiwi from New Zealand (Veteran) Relationship Status: Dancing with myself
Crazy Kiwi
#90: Oct 18th 2013 at 12:00:22 PM

demarquis, I was thinking less of student duelling clubs of the late 19th/early 20th and more of news reports from the late 20th as an indicator of more recent trends away from honourable behaviour towards cowardice (if the two punks I was referring to had a whole functioning testicle between them, they wouldn't have used weapons against unarmed and unprepared victims in the first place...)

Melee weapons are still a credible threat, but only at significantly less than 21 feet and only a frenzied attack (rather than a leisurely "en garde, sir," situation).

Dennis Tueller calculated that an assailant armed with a knife, club, baseball bat, machete etc constitutes a "clear and present danger" at out to 21 feet as the average person can cross that distance in about 1.5 seconds - we're talking a sprint and full out attack, no finesse - and developed what's become known as the "Tueller Drill" whereby a police officer is trained to draw and fire two shots at the centre of mass in less than a second and a half while simultaneously moving out of the assailant's line of attack.

The main idea behind his calculation was to settle legal matters of "at what distance can an officer justify the use of lethal force against a non-ranged weapon".

It also tells us that the maximum engagement of a person (unarmed or with firearm holstered) using a melee weapon is well within 7 yards - and that's not a "sword fight" that's a "fling yourself at them with readied weapon and start flailing".

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#91: Oct 18th 2013 at 12:36:42 PM

Ira: I would love for them to dig up more if they can find anything. That was certainly a quite grisly examination but sounds about spot on for that kind of warfare. I am wondering if they had maybe a hand spike or hand pick were doing the walk up to the tied up guy and giving them a quick whack with it.

I would have to disagree that plate made the swords smaller as it was the bigger swords that gave better performance against armor in the first place. Switching to the smaller sword would have meant a downgrade in performance against those in plate in the first place. And both armor and the larger swords declined around the same time in use. With the lighter or partial armors and then smaller swords taking their place. It makes no sense for plate to be reason the larger sword fell out of favour so much as it was the fact the battle field had changed so much that both began to be altered to try and fit on the new war.

To be more on topic. It would be a real trick to replace something as effective as modern firearms with a melee weapon like the sword. At best as has been noted they are incidental weapons and in the majority of those cases there are better suited weapons for that.

edited 18th Oct '13 12:38:01 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#92: Oct 18th 2013 at 4:09:21 PM

That handpick or spike would have to be at hand for some reason though, otherwise it would be equivalent to a modern soldier deliberately look for a hammer to execute their prisoner as opposed to shooting them with the rifle they got. Just why the trouble of looking for a specific weapon for an execution in that situation?

I am more thinking that because other impact weapons like maces and war hammers and pole axes are so much more effective against plate that the sword became sidelined: if you have an impact weapon and you expect your sword to be a sidearm, you would not want a big sword that would get in the way. Of course, if you want to use a sword against plate you would want a bigger one just for leverage during the wrestling, but even that is far less effective than a pole axe which concentrates the force of impact to the point that they can puncture plate. So it is less "plate armor caused sword's decline" and more "plate gave the rise to other more effective weapons designed to deal with plate, which got the sword sidelined".

edited 18th Oct '13 4:11:52 PM by IraTheSquire

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#93: Oct 18th 2013 at 4:41:04 PM

@Wolf: That is fascinating information, but I don't see how it applies to my argument, which is that as melee weapons are not practical against firearms, the only way swords are coming back is as part of a ritual. Or do you think the crips are going to go with katanas against police 9mm's as part of a "frenzied attack" tactic? Seems unlikely to me.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
glasspistol Since: Nov, 2010
#94: Oct 18th 2013 at 5:06:31 PM

If firearms are somehow completely banned except for military and law enforcement(something that would be nearly impossible to enforce, but let's not go there.) I can see the use of melee weapons being of some use. But the thing is, and that has already been stated several times already, that the situations that would require a sword are so rare as to be insignificant relative to other multifuntion tools that do the same things. Soldiers carry knives for a reason, to cut things, not as a primary offense.

My opinion is that without proper justification(high special funtionality, high science fiction, fantasy) the gun will for the time being be far superior to the sword.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#95: Oct 18th 2013 at 5:25:39 PM

Ira: Sounds plausible to me.

Annnnd reading up on accounts of the battle those guys likely were executed and mutilated. Apparently those that were captured were brutally killed and maimed after capture.

Others were run down, shot with arrows, or otherwise slaughtered. Even a bunch of a knights got hacked to shreds after the battle.

Speaking on the last of the modern swords in the 20th century.

George S Patton designed a sword and wrote a manual for its drill and use. Seems Patton favoured the French style of thrusting fighting from horse back to the Slashing used by most everyone else.

His sword was apparently issued in limited numbers but as far as anyone could tell has never been drawn in anger. It is certainly an interesting looking blade. I kind of want one because I like the look.

The Polish had a rather impressive 1934 Pattern Saber that went through some pretty serious testing before it could be used. I need to find the proofing tests.

edited 18th Oct '13 7:28:25 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
onyhow Too much adorableness from Land of the headpats Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Squeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Too much adorableness
#96: Oct 18th 2013 at 10:39:58 PM

^^ Britain...Didn't there have gun control so strict most criminals use melee weapons instead?

edited 18th Oct '13 10:41:54 PM by onyhow

Give me cute or give me...something?
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#97: Oct 19th 2013 at 2:14:36 AM

[up]

Serious criminals still manage to get their hands on guns. But yes, most crims use knives. Our answer? KNIFE CONTROL! SAMURAI SWORD CONTROL! ALL THE WEAPONS CONTROL!

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Wolf1066 Crazy Kiwi from New Zealand (Veteran) Relationship Status: Dancing with myself
Crazy Kiwi
#98: Oct 19th 2013 at 3:10:15 AM

@ De Marquis: Only the first paragraph was a reply to your post.

The bit about the Tueller Drill was further contribution to the conversation in general.

No, I don't expect the likes of the Crips etc to charge police pistols with swords at short range.

However, drunk, drugged, crazy and/or stupid people have attacked police with a variety of melee weapons - in sufficient numbers that Tueller saw fit to work out the definitive distance for "a clear and present threat".

We actually had an incident here where our police shot a man armed with a golf club and there was a big hue and cry in the media about them shooting someone who "wasn't armed with a firearm". However, going by Tueller's reckonning, the cops were in the right because at the range he was when he brandished the club and verbally threatened harm, he could have easily closed the distance and carried out his threat within a second and a half.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#99: Oct 19th 2013 at 3:23:52 PM

There is sort of a joke about Samurai swords. The vast majority of stories in the news about a loon with sword the sword in question is a "samurai sword".

Who watches the watchmen?
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#100: Oct 19th 2013 at 7:10:55 PM

In Left 4 Dead, the katana is called a Ninja Sword. Nobody involved is a ninja.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

Total posts: 177
Top