Broadsword problems

fak · May 23, 2006

In vanilla M&B, only low-life bandits use broadswords. But I read quite a number of books about medieval times,
which shows drawing of fighting soldiers and duelling knights with swords which have blades wider than their palms
I am not sure whether it is just a exaggeration or broadswords is more common than their thinner and taller cousins.
I made a search in google by key words "medieval' and "broadsword" but this led me to a heap of commercial sites which sell medieval weapons, and the medieval broadswords they sell actually look like long swords in M&B, confusing

Still, I can't be sure that whether broadswords is common among all walks of life in middle age and whether broadswords are swords with blades wider than our stretched palms.

dstemmer · May 23, 2006

Hear that sound? That's Damien blowing a synapse. Watch out, he's pissed off and armed with a broadsword (longsword?).

octavian · May 23, 2006

Ya, Damiens gonna have a fit (I hope :lol:

)

Also... just use the search button, works wonders

Merentha · May 23, 2006

*grin* Well, this should be interesting. I hope this subforum gets a lot of activity, these things are fun.

Ingolifs · May 23, 2006

Nah, Damien, our resident argumentalist, is too busy hanging around the Last Days and only the last days topic.

Merentha · May 23, 2006

Is that deliberate on his part, or can moderators restrict you to only posting in certain forums? He hasn't posted that much in the Last Days subforum recently either.

Damien · May 23, 2006

Hm.

To answer a few questions: I haven't restricted myself to the Last Days forum. Though I do most frequent the Mods forum, generally. I made a post not two days ago in the Suggestions forum, and less than a week ago, I think, in the Off-Topic.

I also haven't blown a synapse, quite yet.

As for the OP:

'Broadsword' is a useless term. It is an 'Enlightenment' term that was used to describe any sword broader in the blade than the common civilian weapons of the day (largely that would be the rapier). This means that every kind of military sword is, by definition, a 'broadsword.'

The weapon presented in M&B under the title 'broadsword' is largely fantasy. It bears passing resemblance to one or two historical swords, but none of them were called 'broadswords.'

The reason your search came up with nothing is because scholars of weaponry do not use the term 'broadsword' for the reason described above. Any questions?

fak · May 23, 2006

Damien said:
'Broadsword' is a useless term. It is an 'Enlightenment' term that was used to describe any sword broader in the blade than the common civilian weapons of the day (largely that would be the rapier). This means that every kind of military sword is, by definition, a 'broadsword.'

The weapon presented in M&B under the title 'broadsword' is largely fantasy. It bears passing resemblance to one or two historical swords, but none of them were called 'broadswords.'

The reason your search came up with nothing is because scholars of weaponry do not use the term 'broadsword' for the reason described above. Any questions?

I only know every swords which are designed to slash are called "broadsword" since 17th century (when compared with rapiers, which are designed only for thrusting)
So there is, in fact, no specific terms for the wide blade swords, or they even doesn't exist, yes?

Damien · May 23, 2006

I only know every swords which are designed to slash are called "broadsword" since 17th century

There's little evidence to support that. All we know is that at -some- point, military swords were (probably snidely) referred to as 'broadswords.' Therefore, there is no such THING as a broadsword, as the term encompasses everything from sabers to medieval thrusting swords, to bastard swords, to Viking swords, and everything else that came before rapiers.

So there is, in fact, no specific terms for the wide blade swords, or they even doesn't exist, yes?

If it's a single-hand sword of Medieval European or near-European design, it's just a 'sword.' Or, more properly, a "single-hand sword." If you like, it is also common practice to refer to single-hand European military swords as arming swords (this term comes from 'arming yourself' with a sword by belting it to your waist, it actually doesn't refer to all single-handers, but in modern vernacular it sometimes does).

Generally, if you want to talk about a particular kind of sword, it's best, and more scholarly, to go by Oakeshott's typology.

http://www.oakeshott.org/typo.html

Jon Snow · May 28, 2006

Or to this excellent link:

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_oakeshott.html

malenn · May 29, 2006

There actually are swords called "broadswords" but as Damien says they were military weapons.
Often of a sort sometimes called Spadrongs or backswords.

This is a so called "broadsword" from 1600
Its a Schiavona often used by mercenaries.
http://bjorn.foxtail.nu/swords/5173.jpg

The biggest reason to all misconceptions are the movies.

Damien · May 29, 2006

There actually are swords called "broadswords" but as Damien says they were military weapons.
Often of a sort sometimes called Spadrongs or backswords.

Well note quite.

'Broadsword' is not a kind of sword. As I pointed out, it is a blanket term for -ALL- swords wider in the blade than a rapier, which is essentially most military swords ever to exist. Therefore there is no such thing as "a broadsword" because, by definition, 90% of all swords ever created on this planet are 'broadswords.' The term, itself, is meaningless. It's about as precise as the word "sword" is.

thesneakster · May 29, 2006

as far as i'm concerned, a sword is something that you either a) stick into someone, and/or b) slash/cut someone with.

that better>

Damien · May 29, 2006

as far as i'm concerned, a sword is something that you either a) stick into someone, or b) slash/cut someone with.

What about the ones that do both?

ArabArcher35 · May 30, 2006

or neither? Haha, just because it's blunt and meant for display doesn't mean it isn't a sword.

Jon Snow · May 30, 2006

ArabArcher35 said:
or neither? Haha, just because it's blunt and meant for display doesn't mean it isn't a sword.

Wow, I never thought I would lower myself to say this, but: Lol pwned.

Feanaro · May 30, 2006

ArabArcher35 said:
or neither? Haha, just because it's blunt and meant for display doesn't mean it isn't a sword.

I've never heard of an original sword that was not sharp. They may have had blunted practice swords but the "real thing" was sharp. It all comes down to what a "real" sword is. And it isn't a shape, me thinks. Else a large hunk of cheese in the shape of a sword is, in fact, a real sword. To me, a blunt sword is not a sword. It is a 3 foot crowbar.

Damien · May 30, 2006

The wallhanger debate is really sticky ground and I take no actual position in such arguments.

People who say a sword is a weapon, and any 'sword' that cannot be used as a weapon correctly is not actually a sword, have a good point.

People who say that a sword-shaped object made out of steel/bronze/iron that could, theoretically, be used to kill someone is also a sword, have a point.

Some people will point out that real swords are tools of warfare, not display pieces. Other people will point out that there is record of historical 'display' swords that were never used in combat (like 'bearing swords'). Both groups have valid points.

The only -fact- of the matter is that what constitutes a sword is entirely a matter of opinion. So perhaps it's best if anti-wallhanger people start referring to combat-worthy swords as 'real swords.' Then there'd be no problem, as no one can claim a display piece is a 'real sword.' But then it remains to be seen whether we'd classify 15th century bearing swords as real swords, or fake swords. . .

Sticky ground, indeed.

thesneakster · May 30, 2006

ANY blunt sword shaped object (with the tapered tip) could be stuck in someone/something, it'd just be harder to do.....

Jon Snow · May 30, 2006

Damien said:
The wallhanger debate is really sticky ground and I take no actual position in such arguments.

People who say a sword is a weapon, and any 'sword' that cannot be used as a weapon correctly is not actually a sword, have a good point.

People who say that a sword-shaped object made out of steel/bronze/iron that could, theoretically, be used to kill someone is also a sword, have a point.

Some people will point out that real swords are tools of warfare, not display pieces. Other people will point out that there is record of historical 'display' swords that were never used in combat (like 'bearing swords'). Both groups have valid points.

The only -fact- of the matter is that what constitutes a sword is entirely a matter of opinion. So perhaps it's best if anti-wallhanger people start referring to combat-worthy swords as 'real swords.' Then there'd be no problem, as no one can claim a display piece is a 'real sword.' But then it remains to be seen whether we'd classify 15th century bearing swords as real swords, or fake swords. . .

Sticky ground, indeed.

Well, whether it's a "fake" sword or a real sword, it's still basically a sword - otherwise, what are you going to call it?

Broadsword problems

Users who are viewing this thread

Regular

Knight at Arms

Sergeant Knight

Baron

Grandmaster Knight

Baron

Sergeant at Arms

Regular

Sergeant at Arms

Knight at Arms

Sergeant at Arms

Sergeant at Arms

Grandmaster Knight

Sergeant at Arms

Baron

Knight at Arms

Squire

Sergeant at Arms

Grandmaster Knight

Knight at Arms

Similar threads