4 ms·

I don't think this is true if you turn your eye towards later sword technology. By the 14th century, Swiss sabers were simply more generally performant than ju

I don't think this is true if you turn your eye towards later sword technology. By the 14th century, Swiss sabers were simply more generally performant than just about anything that came before. They could stab almost as well as a long sword, and slash almost as well as a scimitar, with good balance, and the added advantage of having both a cross guard, and a light basket hand guard. (Personally I think swords are an over-romanticized weapon, and almost wholly inferior to spears in large scale melee combat, but they still evolved like every other piece of military technology, and earlier designs like the katana have a lot of obvious design flaws when compared to what you see on the battlefield in the 14th, 15th, or 16th centuries)

fouc 6y ago
Swiss Saber looks to be primarily one handed, whereas Katana is two handed. They both have somewhat similar long/curved blades though. And they both have the cross guard.
Raphmedia 6y ago
By competitors I meant locally or in areas with similar issues of poor raw materials. Otherwise, I completely agree with you. The Swiss saber was made to deal with similar targets as the Katana, so it performs in similar ways with the added benefit of having all the features you would expect on a western sword. Another sword that is quite similar to the Katana is the Kriegsmessers, which is also two handed. Both benefited from the advance in European warfare technologies while the Katana kind of stalled in it's perceived "perfected" form. Swords are over-romanticized now but I believe that it was also the case in the past. Any hardened soldier could have told you that spears or pikes where what won wars. Yet it's the sword we see and hear the most in art. The myths surrounding the Katana are probably as old as the sword itself.
giardini 6y ago
viridian says "Personally I think swords are an over-romanticized weapon, and almost wholly inferior to spears..." Yes, and even inferior to the staff. Here is a (1599!) plea to Englishmen to cease wastefully killing each other in duels (esp. with Italian mores/swords/styles) b/c those swords/styles are unsuited to generalized warfare (and thus provide no useful training for the common defense) and also are inferior to other more common weapons/styles, esp. the short staff, in single combat: "Now for the vantage of the short staff against the sword and buckler, sword & target, two handed sword, single sword, sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard, there is no great question ... the short staff has the vantage against the battle axe, black bill, or halberd: the short staff has the advantage, by reason of the nimbleness and length: he will strike and thrust freely, and in better and swifter time than can the battle axe, black bill, or halberd, and by reason of his judgement, distance and time, fight safe. And this resolve upon, the short staff is the best weapon against all manner of weapons, the forest bill excepted...Also the short staff has advantage against two swords and daggers, or two rapiers, poniards and gauntlets(19)... From George Silver's Paradoxes of Defense: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html wherein Silver analyzes the interaction of various weapons in great detail, underscores the advantages of the short staff in most situations and in doing so presages Theodore Roosevelt: "I have always been fond of the West African proverb: 'Speak softly and carry a big stick: you will go far!'" https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick.html https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-softly-and-carry-a...
- user5994461 6y ago
  He's talking about single combat. I don't think that's relevant to battlefield. I expect stick would have the problem of not killing. A sword can easily stab someone dead or maim and any hit is (significant) bleeding. A hammer could bludgeon someone dead in a hit. But a staff? I don't know about that. Yes you can hit somebody in a duel from afar and keep your distance, yet you hit them 5 times and they keep coming at you.
  - Raphmedia 6y ago
    I believe that you are downplaying the effect of being hit across the head with a staff. It is no different than a hammer in the sense that you can break someone's limbs and kill them with a blow to the head. Combat staffs were not non-lethal. Take for example the Bo that can easily break bones and can bend even a Katana with a proper strike. Even pool cues will kill when used in bar fights.
  - giardini 6y ago
    user5994461 says "He's talking about single combat. I don't think that's relevant to battlefield." In "Paradoxes of Defense" Silver talks about both: a) He believes that dueling traditions adopted from other cultures are wasteful of English life and limb and provide little or no training for use on the battlefield. It was important that each well-bodied Englishman be able to serve his country in a war. Once war was declared, there was scant time for training with new weapons and the dueling skills were not very useful. b) He discusses most weapons and considers their use in one-on-one, one-on-two and battle situations. user5994461 says "I expect stick would have the problem of not killing." Many have been killed/wounded by a "stick"(AKA rolling pin, tire tool, baseball bat, 2x4, flashlight, etc.). But "sticks" per se vary from a short stick, e.g., police baton, to a short staff, e.g., 1-2 inch diameter by ~1 meter length, to a longer staff (maybe ~3 meters and longer). Sizes differ for different cultures. Some "sticks" have lead/iron weights in them. Some are wrapped with metal. A larger weapon is usually capable of dealing harder blows. "Sticks" kill by breaking heads and bones (ribs, shins, arms and legs, the neck, eyes, throat), etc. Usually they disable immediately (hard to fight with a broken leg or if your larynx has been crushed). It would be foolish to fight with a broken arm or missing eye if one could simply play dead. user5994461 says "...yet you hit them 5 times and they keep coming at you." You need a bigger stick or some exercise. Oh, and don't mess with those Orcs!8-)) Silver(author of Paradoxes of Defense) was likely more familiar with this than you or I. I don't doubt his experience. An English nursery rhyme: Sticks and stones may break my bones But words shall never hurt me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

fouc 6y ago

Swiss Saber looks to be primarily one handed, whereas Katana is two handed. They both have somewhat similar long/curved blades though. And they both have the cross guard.

Raphmedia 6y ago

By competitors I meant locally or in areas with similar issues of poor raw materials. Otherwise, I completely agree with you. The Swiss saber was made to deal with similar targets as the Katana, so it performs in similar ways with the added benefit of having all the features you would expect on a western sword. Another sword that is quite similar to the Katana is the Kriegsmessers, which is also two handed. Both benefited from the advance in European warfare technologies while the Katana kind of stalled in it's perceived "perfected" form. Swords are over-romanticized now but I believe that it was also the case in the past. Any hardened soldier could have told you that spears or pikes where what won wars. Yet it's the sword we see and hear the most in art. The myths surrounding the Katana are probably as old as the sword itself.

giardini 6y ago

viridian says "Personally I think swords are an over-romanticized weapon, and almost wholly inferior to spears..." Yes, and even inferior to the staff. Here is a (1599!) plea to Englishmen to cease wastefully killing each other in duels (esp. with Italian mores/swords/styles) b/c those swords/styles are unsuited to generalized warfare (and thus provide no useful training for the common defense) and also are inferior to other more common weapons/styles, esp. the short staff, in single combat: "Now for the vantage of the short staff against the sword and buckler, sword & target, two handed sword, single sword, sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard, there is no great question ... the short staff has the vantage against the battle axe, black bill, or halberd: the short staff has the advantage, by reason of the nimbleness and length: he will strike and thrust freely, and in better and swifter time than can the battle axe, black bill, or halberd, and by reason of his judgement, distance and time, fight safe. And this resolve upon, the short staff is the best weapon against all manner of weapons, the forest bill excepted...Also the short staff has advantage against two swords and daggers, or two rapiers, poniards and gauntlets(19)... From George Silver's Paradoxes of Defense: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html wherein Silver analyzes the interaction of various weapons in great detail, underscores the advantages of the short staff in most situations and in doing so presages Theodore Roosevelt: "I have always been fond of the West African proverb: 'Speak softly and carry a big stick: you will go far!'" https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick.html https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-softly-and-carry-a...

user5994461 6y ago
He's talking about single combat. I don't think that's relevant to battlefield. I expect stick would have the problem of not killing. A sword can easily stab someone dead or maim and any hit is (significant) bleeding. A hammer could bludgeon someone dead in a hit. But a staff? I don't know about that. Yes you can hit somebody in a duel from afar and keep your distance, yet you hit them 5 times and they keep coming at you.
- Raphmedia 6y ago
  I believe that you are downplaying the effect of being hit across the head with a staff. It is no different than a hammer in the sense that you can break someone's limbs and kill them with a blow to the head. Combat staffs were not non-lethal. Take for example the Bo that can easily break bones and can bend even a Katana with a proper strike. Even pool cues will kill when used in bar fights.
- giardini 6y ago
  user5994461 says "He's talking about single combat. I don't think that's relevant to battlefield." In "Paradoxes of Defense" Silver talks about both: a) He believes that dueling traditions adopted from other cultures are wasteful of English life and limb and provide little or no training for use on the battlefield. It was important that each well-bodied Englishman be able to serve his country in a war. Once war was declared, there was scant time for training with new weapons and the dueling skills were not very useful. b) He discusses most weapons and considers their use in one-on-one, one-on-two and battle situations. user5994461 says "I expect stick would have the problem of not killing." Many have been killed/wounded by a "stick"(AKA rolling pin, tire tool, baseball bat, 2x4, flashlight, etc.). But "sticks" per se vary from a short stick, e.g., police baton, to a short staff, e.g., 1-2 inch diameter by ~1 meter length, to a longer staff (maybe ~3 meters and longer). Sizes differ for different cultures. Some "sticks" have lead/iron weights in them. Some are wrapped with metal. A larger weapon is usually capable of dealing harder blows. "Sticks" kill by breaking heads and bones (ribs, shins, arms and legs, the neck, eyes, throat), etc. Usually they disable immediately (hard to fight with a broken leg or if your larynx has been crushed). It would be foolish to fight with a broken arm or missing eye if one could simply play dead. user5994461 says "...yet you hit them 5 times and they keep coming at you." You need a bigger stick or some exercise. Oh, and don't mess with those Orcs!8-)) Silver(author of Paradoxes of Defense) was likely more familiar with this than you or I. I don't doubt his experience. An English nursery rhyme: Sticks and stones may break my bones But words shall never hurt me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]