Sword Fight

[The Drunkard Kid]

I dunno, if I were stuck facing up against an armored adversary I think I'd like me a Lucerne Hammer.

although using a claymore with half-sword techniques might penetrate the armor if you aimed at weak spots. and you could always use it as leverage for chokes and locks and then proceed to throwing you adversary to the ground to finish them off. (at least this seemed to be some of the preferred techniques in Codex Wallerstein and Talhoeffers treatise on combat. it's impressive how often the sword wasn't used for cutting the enemy-- it was used as a leverage point for breaking somebody's arm or throwing them to the ground)

Pfft. Obviously claymores are the best against armored opponents.

[Sharpandpointies]

A couple of comments before Ghost wanders in here and gives us the lowdown on how this will pan out.

'Which sword is better' pretty much depends on the armor people are wearing at the time and place. Here, you're talking about swords against people wearing NO armor.

In this case, we have a couple of swords that have greater reach or were made for use against little to no armor at all - the rapier and the claymore.

The claymore isn't going to be as quick as some of the other swords, but barring a vast disparity of speed, reach can make a difference. Oh, and they were certainly sharp enough to stab or cut.

The rapier is quick, has a good reach, and is designed for fighting with the point, But it can cut. It's not going to be lopping off arms or decapitating people, but you CAN cut with it and a sliced up wrist, inner forearm, bicep, or the like is going to really mess with another swordfighter's game. As will a cut to the throat.

It's pretty hard to call, here, for me. Rapier vs. Katana has been beaten into the ground with a blunt hammer. So have many other different sword versus sword rumbles.

Owing to the situation (both people on foot, no armor), I'm going to give a hair's advantage to the rapier here (especially given it was BUILT for this purpose), with the saber and katana and claymore duking it out for second. The scimitar doesn't have the oomph of the katana or the reach of the other two. Same deal with the kalis. Falcata is even shorter, and built only for choppy choppy.

I'd possibly have a higher opinion of the 'broadsword' if I knew specifics. :)

This is not to say that there couldn't be upsets. Every fight will be a bit of a nailbiter (excepting perhaps the best ones against the falcata, which looks to be th size of a large machete at best). But if we ran 100 of each, that's how I'd expect it to go on average.

Mileage, as always, may vary, and I'd like to see what Ghost thinks.

[Ghost]

A couple of comments before Ghost wanders in here and gives us the lowdown on how this will pan out.

'Which sword is better' pretty much depends on the armor people are wearing at the time and place. Here, you're talking about swords against people wearing NO armor.

In this case, we have a couple of swords that have greater reach or were made for use against little to no armor at all - the rapier and the claymore.

Well, you'll want to count the saber into this as well - it has virtually the same reach as the rapier and is intended to be used in unarmored combat. They are actually quite versatile.

Owing to the situation (both people on foot, no armor), I'm going to give a hair's advantage to the rapier here (especially given it was BUILT for this purpose), with the saber and katana and claymore duking it out for second. The scimitar doesn't have the oomph of the katana or the reach of the other two. Same deal with the kalis. Falcata is even shorter, and built only for choppy choppy.

I think the performance of the scimitar varies a lot depending on the exact design, because again, umbrella term.

Most would probably be roughly comparable to the saber. In fact, with things like the polish karabela, the line between the two become very blurry.

I'd possibly have a higher opinion of the 'broadsword' if I knew specifics. :)

Medieval arming swords aren't really meant to be used without a shield. You can, by adapting later messer techniques, but it wasn't done back then as far as we know.

Substituting it for a baskethilt or a later complex hilted cut-and-thrust sword makes more sense in this context. (Not so much because of the construction, but rather that they were actually meant to be used this way.) Relevant video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phyPMOYXOCM

Also, some rapier vs hussar saber videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT1m3vK5fhI

Some of the factors at play where. We where both tired as this was at the end of a 3 hour block of sparring. We have completely different body types. I am almost a foot taller and 100lbs heaver that Adam. He is faster on his feet but I have more reach. Because of our height difference almost all my attack where downward so he could plan for that. Even with my longer arms I had a much shorter reach and had to work to close the distance where he could hit me and I couldn't reach him

The tip of his sword was so fast that when I was in his measure and did attack his blade he could thrust and I had a hard time parrying his lungh in time. The rapier seemed to have a harder time transitioning between a parry and an attack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVg9fDoV6uc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFaK8oT0Gs

Some more saber and rapier. The stocky one is me and the this guy is Richard Marsden. He is a very good rapier fighter with years of experiences. I had a hard time getting in to range and I couldn't keep up with the tip of the rapier. In the video you can see him cavazione around my moulinets.

As we can see, skill and things like size and endurance has to be factored in.

This is not to say that there couldn't be upsets. Every fight will be a bit of a nailbiter (excepting perhaps the best ones against the falcata, which looks to be th size of a large machete at best). But if we ran 100 of each, that's how I'd expect it to go on average.

Mileage, as always, may vary, and I'd like to see what Ghost thinks.

Yeah, I'd count out the falcata and kris right away assuming all other factors are equal. Can you beat a sabrist or a guy with a claymore with a falcata, when the fight isn't taking place in a cramped location where a long sword gets in the way? Sure you can, I mean, if the stars are right and the planets align. But I wouldn't bet my bottom dollar bill on you.

All the rest? No idea. Saber vs scimitar is probably a coin toss. Either can hold its own okay against the broadsword. The rapier's reach and linear fighting style would be tricky to overcome, but on the other hand it doesn't have dedicated defenses against cutting oriented swords. The katana has a reach problem but compensates a bit with powerful cuts. Question is how favorable that is in a fight with no armor against much longer swords.

The claymore is a huge wildcard for me, because I simply haven't seen anyone train with them and I have no idea what their fighting style even looks like.

...Maybe it's just me being very Swedish, but I tend to side with versatility over specialization in cases like this. So, my favor goes to the broadsword, saber or scimitar. Which one, I really can't tell.

[Chou Blaster]

*Claps!* Yeah, In Sid Myier's Pirates, out of the 3 swords (Rapier, Cutlass Saber.) I always went for the Saber.

Yeah, good to know you Ghost, making this sort of thing interesting.

[Sharpandpointies]

Nice rundown, Ghost. :)