5 ms·

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

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
  - user5994461 6y ago

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
- user5994461 6y ago