Main > The Armoury
How sharp should a sword be?
Henrik Granlid:
This might be helpful
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=31395
Allong with some cutting tests of various weapons by Thegnthrand, Skallagrim and Schola Gladiatora on YouTube as well as their discussions on the topic.
The long and short of it is that even a rudimentary layer of linnen doesn't cut well as a target.
Sir Nate:
--- Quote from: Henrik Granlid on 2015-02-21, 02:00:43 ---This might be helpful
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=31395
Allong with some cutting tests of various weapons by Thegnthrand, Skallagrim and Schola Gladiatora on YouTube as well as their discussions on the topic.
The long and short of it is that even a rudimentary layer of linnen doesn't cut well as a target.
--- End quote ---
Thank you.
I also went into more exploration of it, and using an apple and Some padding, the blade leaves a good indent in the apple. Then adding mail over it, the blade left a lot less trauma in the apple.
But that raises the question, if my blade is as sharp as it should be, what was the need of havin a whole sharpened blade on the battle field if it can't cut through padding, and thrusting only penetrates the first few layers, I'm still leaving trauma, but the blade wouldn't need to be as sharp as it is to do this(would it? Or does the edge make a huge difference in trauma?)
So now I'm questioning three things.
1. Is my sword still not as sharp as it should be
2. Where their still many opponents that didn't have padding for armor(couldn't afford it) and that a sword can cut through with the blade. 3. I'm not testing properly.
Henrik Granlid:
A sword is a sidearm, not a primary weapon. Once you drop your pollaxe or break your lance, you're gonna need something, and a three foot iron bar with every inch of it being designed to murder people is a good choice.
Swords were often used on people in civilian garb, or on people with little to no armour, where the long edge comes to a great effect. Also, as soon as something is exposed on your oponent, the entire length of the sword can be brought to bear.
But yeah, swords weren't a primary armament for dealing with armour, pole-weapons were, both amongst the rich and the poor. And yeah, there are going to be lightly or unarmoured soldiers on the field as well, at least well into the 14th century. Knights were armoured because they were rich. Those of lesser status who weren't supplied by their lord would need to get their armour themselves, and in a time where the shield was the primary defense, they were far more likely to have a helmet than a maille.
Also do take into account that you are not a profesional soldier who's used to murdering people with your sword, as such, tests by you may or may not be skewed.
Sir Nate:
--- Quote from: Henrik Granlid on 2015-02-21, 23:19:29 ---A sword is a sidearm, not a primary weapon. Once you drop your pollaxe or break your lance, you're gonna need something, and a three foot iron bar with every inch of it being designed to murder people is a good choice.
Swords were often used on people in civilian garb, or on people with little to no armour, where the long edge comes to a great effect. Also, as soon as something is exposed on your oponent, the entire length of the sword can be brought to bear.
But yeah, swords weren't a primary armament for dealing with armour, pole-weapons were, both amongst the rich and the poor. And yeah, there are going to be lightly or unarmoured soldiers on the field as well, at least well into the 14th century. Knights were armoured because they were rich. Those of lesser status who weren't supplied by their lord would need to get their armour themselves, and in a time where the shield was the primary defense, they were far more likely to have a helmet than a maille.
Also do take into account that you are not a profesional soldier who's used to murdering people with your sword, as such, tests by you may or may not be skewed.
--- End quote ---
Hey, Ill get some fleshy dummy one day.
Actually I have a bit of a big dumb dumb to announce. I'm cutting through the padding fine now….. easily…. Magic?
Nay.
Well I have the padding on a cardboard pole, and the sword when I hit and draw a little, cuts through the padding. The padding, Is a layer of some sturdy modern material(canvas'y) filled with foam. The sword cuts through all of it.
Also a point on the 12th to mid 13th century (Morgan picture bible) Most of the Cavalry is depicted wielding swords. More slashing designed blades. And in the 12th century Swords weren't really available to more people. Definitely Later you go more and more swords are around, and most people can afford a sword as a side arm. Swords are also more designed for thrusting in the later periods(many)
So they are not as bulky ( or as main a weapon?) as earlier swords.
Light use of bulky… like blade heavier…
(I may be wrong on some info, Please someone correct me if I am wrong. Or if what I said is accurate, I get a "Sounds good" (Y)
Wide sword requires 5 Strength, and Spike blade requires 3?
Thus your character can't carry two weapons. :D :D :D
Thorsteinn:
Your sword should be sharp enough to cut the sin from your enemies heart. ;D
Have you sen the cutting and stabbing tests that Mike Loades did in Weapons That made Britain?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version