Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.39904134 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

POLEARMS >>>>> SWORDS

>> No.39904149

I can agree to that.

>> No.39904162

Polearms are just swords with really long handles.

>> No.39904224

>>39904134
You know, unless the sword is designed to manipulate a polearm. Or the guy wielding the sword had an ounce of skill.

>> No.39904260

>>39904224
>another retard who doesn't know how zweihanders were actually used
They need the polearm to be pinned down by other polearms to actually do their job.
>Or the guy wielding the sword had an ounce of skill.
>muh skill fallacy

>> No.39904316

>>39904260
>tfw bigass swords like zweihanders were originally made for breaking pike formations.

>> No.39904369

>>39904134
>posting an anime version of a famous painting
>both Mordred and Arthur die anyway

>> No.39904377

There is literally always a situation for both.

But I tend to like weird hipster weapons, like this one.

>> No.39904382

>>39904162
>Polearms are just swords with really long handles.

Go home East Asia, you're drunk.

>> No.39904476

>>39904382
Yeah, about that, why do Chinese call some polearms sabers?

>> No.39904494

>>39904476
Translation issues?

>> No.39904501

>>39904134
Not as cool though.

Also who wants to carry a polearm all day when adventuring?

>> No.39904519

>> No.39904536

>>39904501
Use it as a walking stick, or put it on your pack.

It's no more cumbersome than having a couple pounds of metal banging against one your hips.

>> No.39904564

>>39904536
>put it on your back

Does a polearm sheath even exist? Also wouldn't it constantly bump into the ground, and get caught on things if you did that.

Still sounds inconvenient.

>> No.39904577

>>39904501
You get to twirl your spear while dexfagging around, that's moderately cool except you're a dexfag.

>> No.39904580

>>39904564
sorry, meant to say back
Also meant to include pic

>> No.39904601

>>39904564
>he keeps his pack on his person
they're called PACK animals for a reason, anon!

>> No.39904626

>>39904476
What >>39904494 said
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dao_(sword)#Name
"In Chinese, the word 刀 can be applied to any weapon with a single-edged blade and usually refers to knives. Because of this, the term is sometimes translated as knife or sword-knife."

Kitchen knife is 刀 Dao
Saber is 刀 Dao
Polearm with a single-edged blade is 刀 Dao.

In Japan however, 刀 ("To" in Japanese) exclusively refers to Single Edged swords. Staff Weapons excluded. The general Japanese word for sword however is "ken" from the old Chinese "Gim," meaning "sword."

>> No.39904743

>>39904626
>>39904382
Fuckin thanks m8.

>> No.39904775

>>39904316
Yes, with the active assistance of a friendly pike formation.

Swords were, for huge chunks of human history in various cultures, primarily used as side arms. That is to say they were the weapon you used in the event your primary war weapon (typically a polearm) were rendered unavailable, if only temporarily. This is much like a modern soldier carrying a pistol. It isn't his primary weapon by any means.

>>39904501
Do you even henchmen? Get your shit together, Sir Tyrone. You're embarrassing the rest of the party.

>> No.39904805

GUNS >>>>> POLEARMS

>> No.39904836

>>39904805
Nuclear weapons > guns

Gee what fun

>> No.39904858

Horse back Archery >>>>>> Polearms

>> No.39904895

>>39904601
that's a mean thing to call his wife

>> No.39904932

>>39904805
GUNS = POLEARMS
WHAT NOW FAGGIT

>> No.39904953

>>39904775
>needs a servant

Shouldn't you be getting a manicure or something?

>> No.39904959

>>39904162
YOU FUCKING IDIOT HOLY SHIT

Swords are just polearms with really short handles. GD.

>> No.39904986

>>39904836

Space opera weapons > Nukes

Fuck yeah!

>> No.39905019

>>39904858
Heavy Infantry >>>>> Horse Archers

>> No.39905036

>>39904986
space opera weapons are just nukes though

>> No.39905046

If swords are so good, then why aren't arrows shaped like swords? Why didn't siege machines fire swords? Why don't they call it sword-and-shot? Why didn't they have sword jousting? Why didn't they pierce Jesus with a sword? Why aren't missiles sword shaped? Why weren't bayonets just swords attached to guns?

Checkmate, swordfags.

>> No.39905086

>>39905046
>Why aren't missiles sword shaped?
they aren't exactly spear shaped either

>> No.39905094

>>39905019
Didn't he get his ass kicked by horse archers?

>> No.39905096

>>39904134
You know, I totally thought that was two giants duking it out over an army of normal sized people fighting between their feet.

>> No.39905099

>>39905046
But most bayonets are basically large knives or short swords...

>> No.39905132

>>39904501
>Not as cool
Do you even have class?

>> No.39905136

>>39905036
relativistic kill vehicles are better than nukes

>> No.39905139

>>39904959
Swords and polearms are just daggers with really long blades and/or handles, honestly.

>> No.39905151

>>39905096
Nope, just a couple of genderswapped mystical 5'1 characters duking it out.

>> No.39905171

>>39905036

Niggah please do you even GSTFA

Bet you aint even seen a strange spin anti-neutron beam

>> No.39905205

>>39905099
No. Do you not even realize what a spear is? It's a knife on a long stick. That is the defining trait of a basic spear. When you put the bayonet on a gun, you are creating a spear because the gun becomes the pole.

>> No.39905206

>>39905132
Fucking christ, what do you want to be? An ax, a hammer or a spear? Pick a lane goddammit.

>> No.39905225

>>39905206
That's the power of polearms, bruh. Swords can't compete.

>> No.39905336

>>39905086
Arrows are minispears, arguably.
Javelins ARE thrown spears
Only missile weapon not spear shaped are bullets for slings and guns

>> No.39905373

>>39905336
>Only missile weapon not spear shaped are bullets for slings and guns
what about missiles

>> No.39905375

>>39904134
I agree

>> No.39905377

>>39905206
>what do you want to be? An ax, a hammer or a spear?
Yes

>> No.39905398

>>39905375
Go away lancer, you're not even the best lancer after Apocrypha.

>> No.39905424

>>39905373
Looks like a pole armament to me.

>> No.39905447

>>39904369
Shit, I knew I recognised it from somewhere.

>> No.39905454

>>39905225
That's the weakness of polearms, you mean. They can't decide on anything, whereas swords do. That's why swords are the weapons of heroes.

>> No.39905478

>>39904134
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of all these dead Greeks.

>> No.39905496

>>39905454
Nice religion tier nonsense argument.

>> No.39905503

>>39905478
You beat the Greeks? Is that suppose to be an accomplishment?

>> No.39905522

>>39905503
Greeks (Spears), Macedonians (Pikes), Dacians (Polearms), Gauls (Longswords), Parthians (Bows), Iberians (Sabers), Cartheginians (Elephants), and other Italians (spears).

Rome destroyed them all with switchblades. The superiority of Roman arms is not debatable, it is fact.

>> No.39905538

>>39905522
See >>39905046
You don't know shit about Roman military history.

>> No.39905568

>>39905496
*tips fedora*

>> No.39905600

>>39905522
>Iberians (Sabers)
But the Romans ripped off Iberian "sabers".

>> No.39905612

>>39905522
And then you got your asses handed to you by a bunch of horse fuckers.
Actually no wait that's a bit of an over simplification, you got your ass handed to you by like three different barbarian tribes, one of which were horse fuckers.

>> No.39905625

>>39905206

Horse coming your way? Fuck that, pike.
Shields giving you shit? Let me "axe" them a question and we will see if that changes.
Plate armor rolling up the joint? Hammer meets faceplate.

>> No.39905634

>>39905522
>he thinks wars are commonly decided by field battles
The Roman's advanced logistics and sophisticated siege engines is what made them beat the Greeks time and time again.

>>39905612
They lost because Roman government was in shambles and they couldn't organize the military force that they needed.

>> No.39905665

>>39905634
Yeah and whose fault was that?

>> No.39905679

>>39905522

lel you still can't beat obelix and his pebbles tho.

>> No.39905694

>>39905398
>implying he was ever best Lancer

>>39905447
Oh man, that takes me back.
A lot of the fun in Fate comes from seeing mythology get run through the Japanese westaboo filter. OP's image and all the frames from the S1 end credits of Fate/Zero are perfect examples of that classic myth business being put to use.

>> No.39905697

>>39905665

The jews

>> No.39905700

>>39905522
That man's tailor is shit and should be publicly spanked. Look at those edges! Fucking hem that shit!

>> No.39905713

>>39905398
Poor Lancer can't catch a break.

>> No.39905721

>>39905697
I think someone is trying to divert blame and isn't man enough to admit to his own failings.

>> No.39905728

>>39905447
Damn, Arthur looks like a total fuccboi there.

>> No.39905743

>>39904134
How would Rangmango stack up against Excalibur?

>> No.39905749

>>39905721

But a jew literally was the downfall to the Roman Empire

>> No.39905759

>>39905625
not knowing nearly as much as I'd like about weapons from the old times, just wanted to ask if someone knows what's up with the end of the hammer.
is it just what the smith felt like doing, or is there some engineering behind it that lets someone smash shit better?

>> No.39905781

>>39905749
>Blaming Christianity for the fall of Rome
Gibbon pls go

>> No.39905799

>>39904932
Fun fact: Chinese word for Spear (枪
Qiāng) and Gun (as in a long gun like a rifle or musket) (枪
Qiāng) are the same.

Possibly due to early Chinese firearms being essentially weapons strapped to a spear or pole (i.e. Fire lance, Hand gun)

>> No.39905805

>>39905759

it's what gets you those really tasty crispy grids on your burgers

>> No.39905832

>>39905799
Fucking Chinese language, its a miracle they can even communicate with each other.

>> No.39905836

>>39905799

>spears strapped to the side of flaming explosive bulls

dude
someone please explain what is this

>> No.39905847

>>39904134
I can finally post it and it's relevant

>> No.39905869

>>39904134
WEAPON THAT IS SUITABLE TO THE COMBAT SCENARIO >>>>> WEAPON THAT IS NOT SUITABLE TO THE COMBAT SCENARIO

unless it's a katana. Katanas literally beat everything in every situation and there is no reason to use anything else
even better if you use two of them

>> No.39905881

>>39905799

>flaming charging bulls

so not only are you terrified, but the smell of fresh beef also makes you hungry.

Truly China, did invent and perfect the art of war.

>> No.39905882

>>39905832
They can't communicate with each other.

>> No.39905888

>>39905832
Context m8.
>>39905836
Typical in war, you know, driving animals to scatter formations. Romans did it against the Carthaginians, Indians did it with Wild Elephants.

China did it in that Battle, but instead of the usual flame tied to a bull's tail, they strapped them with incendiaries.

>> No.39905894

>>39905869
WEAPON THAT IS SUPERIOR IN MORE COMBAT SITUATIONS >>>>> WEAPON THAT IS SUPERIOR IN LESS COMBAT SITUATIONS

>> No.39905934

>>39905888
I don't need context to complain about the Chinese Language.

>> No.39905943

>>39905759
Force is distributed more evenly over a smaller surface area, giving you more bang for your buck, much like a pickaxe applies devastating amounts of pressure because all of its energy is focused into one small area. Why was it made in grid patterns instead of spikes? I dunno. Less work, less maintenance, less likely to get stuck in things, aesthetic appeal, it's hilarious to make the other guy's face look like a waffle?

>> No.39905944

>>39905894
So what you're saying is

Rifles >>>> every other man-portable-weapon

>> No.39905968

>>39905132
Yeah. Wizard.

>> No.39906032

>> No.39906148

>>39905934
I mean't they differentiate words on Context of a sentence.

>> No.39906166

>>39905944
Well the assault rifle did very quickly become a worldwide standard, supplemented by more specialised weapons, so yeah. Sure.

>> No.39906227

MY WEAPON IS BETTER THAN YOUR WEAPON

>> No.39906235

>>39906227
>Military history in a nutshell

>> No.39906565

>>39905944

Davy Crockett says: fuck you.

>> No.39906615

>>39906565
He said man portable, that thing was crew served.

>> No.39906640

>>39906615

Fine. Three guys with a third of one each are still way way ahead.

>> No.39906643

>>39904134
In certain situations, sure. In others, swords are better.

>> No.39906676

>>39905894
If we're going by this logic in a medieval/renaissance context, I'd imagine Longswords or Quarterstaves would fit the bill here. Not particularly excelling at anything in particular, but can be carried around easily in a civillian context, good against unarmored opponents and decent against armor via mordhau or half-swording/thick piece of wood to the noggin, steel caps/rings optional, and have a lot of potential as a training weapon as they form the core for a lot of fencing schools at the time.

>> No.39906729

>>39904953
After the battle, yes. For I intend to diddle your sister and make her eat me out after I've broken her with my polearm-wielding hards.

>> No.39906769

>>39906676
>I'd imagine Longswords or Quarterstaves would fit the bill here.
No, they wouldn't.

>> No.39906814

>>39906769
why not?

>> No.39906966

>>39906814
>ineffective against most armors
>difficult to wield in enclosed area as they derive much of their power from swinging motions and are lengthy
>large and does fit easily on the body or mesh well with physical activity
>outranged by a variety of weapons
>slower than similarly ranged weapons
>one is expensive and high maintenance, the other is prone to breakage and is generally non-lethal
>half-swording isn't going to save you and requires hand protection
>you think medieval and renaissance is even roughly the same context
>the long sword is not a good learning weapon
You imagined wrong, m8

>> No.39907203

>>39905943
>>39905805
aha! thanks!
smarter, funnier and tastier combat, all in one weapon. now we're talking.

>> No.39907327

>>39906966
>ineffective against most armors
>half swording
>mordhau,
>reading comprehension
>difficult to wield in enclosed area as they derive much of their power from swinging motions and are lengthy
Half swording, plus, don't you have a dagger for this kinda stuff?
>large and does fit easily on the body or mesh well with physical activity
Sheath? Walking stick?
>outranged by a variety of weapons
Are you seriously trying to defend yourself with a pike in a street?
>slower than similarly ranged weapons
[citation needed]
>one is expensive and high maintenance, the other is prone to breakage and is generally non-lethal
Longswords started getting cheaper later into the middle ages, so it began being a civillian weapon. Also, quarterstaves derived their name from being made out of a hardwood log split into quarters, so they were pretty thick and tough, plus would sometimes have reinforcing rings to aid parrying steel weapons, so could easily crack skulls.
>half-swording isn't going to save you
[citation needed]
>and requires hand protection
What is a ricasso?
>the long sword is not a good learning weapon
>laughinglichtenhauer.jpg
Plus, I never said it was the best in each situation, but an acceptable middle ground. You're also aware by longsword I mean the two-handed sword, right?

>> No.39907390

Short swords get no love

>> No.39907405

>>39907327
>plus, don't you have a dagger for this kinda stuff?
Why are you mentioning a different weapon
>Sheath? Walking stick?
Is not going to make your weapon magically weight nothing and not be long as hell
>Are you seriously trying to defend yourself with a pike in a street?
Are you seriously trying to defend yourself against multiple foes with a close range hacking blade or a stick?
>[citation needed]
[argument needed]
>blah blah blah
Had nothing to do with my statement and longswords were never cheaper than weapons that used less metal bruh
>[citation needed]
[knowledge needed]
>What is a ricasso?
Enjoy hand slippage and the slicing that follows or being completely ineffectual with your blows
>Plus, I never said it was the best in each situation, but an acceptable middle ground.
But you did claim it was the best middle ground. That's wrong.
>You're also aware by longsword I mean the two-handed sword, right?
You're a retard.

>> No.39907425

>>39905522
>Greeks (Spears)

Funnily enough, Greeks actually fought in the same manner as Romans.

Romans copied most of their equipment and some tactics from the Celts. Surprise surprise, so did the Greeks who were royally asswrecked by the Celts during Brennos' great raid that sacked Delphi.

So Rome wasn't really "Superior" to anyone else in arms.

>> No.39907445

>>39905336

>> No.39907489

>>39907390
Who the fuck picks a short sword willingly? Its like picking a lady's special at a firing range.

>> No.39907522

>>39907489
>lady's special at a firing range

You mean a twelve gauge that's had the shot shell switcheroo pulled on it?

>> No.39908163

>>39905094
I think that's the joke.

>> No.39908175

>>39905522
>Rome destroyed them all with switchblades
And spears, and javelins, and heavy shields and armor, and auxiliaries using all of the above.

I'm sure the Romans killed those elephants by hurling their short swords at them.

>> No.39908436

>>39908175
10/10 post

>> No.39908554

>>39907405
>plus, don't you have a dagger for this kinda stuff?
For enclosed spaces, what else are you supposed to use?
>Is not going to make your weapon magically weight nothing and not be long as hell
You can easily walk around everywhere with a 5 foot stick. A longsword's only about 115-125cm anyway. Plus
>implying longswords are heavy
Zweihanders meant for actual battle only weighed 2.5kg dude.
>Are you seriously trying to defend yourself against multiple foes with a close range hacking blade or a stick?
Swinging weapons with decent reach that were also civillian weapons would be perfect in such a situation. What do you suggest?
>[argument needed]
Alright, what's a faster comparable reach weapon then?
>Had nothing to do with my statement
Of course it did, you claimed quarterstaves were non-lethal, which they could be. I accept the point about the cheapness measure, but they weren't that expensive.
>[knowledge needed]
>Enjoy hand slippage
Just what the fuck do you have against half-swording? They didn't teach it to make people useless.
>But you did claim it was the best middle ground. That's wrong.
Alright, I did, that's an inconsistency. I still stand by them being the best middle ground. What do you suggest is better?
>You're a retard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword

>> No.39908627

>>39908554
>For enclosed spaces, what else are you supposed to use?
See>>39907405
>You can easily walk around everywhere with a 5 foot stick. A longsword's only about 115-125cm anyway. Plus I'm a fucking retard
It's about balance by length, not weight.
>Zweihanders meant for actual battle only weighed 2.5kg dude.
See above, broski.
>Swinging weapons with decent reach that were also civillian weapons would be perfect in such a situation.
No, it wouldn't. The reach is too short to keep them at bay and the method of attack is too focused on single targets and you cannot stop nor retract midswing while keeping your balance so it is utterly terrible at fending off multiple foes
>Alright, what's a faster comparable reach weapon then?
Polearms. Any thrusting weapon.
>Of course it did, you claimed quarterstaves were non-lethal, which they could be.
And they are. No amount of metal rings are going to make them a combat practical lethal weapon.
>Just what the fuck do you have against half-swording?
Nothing, but you don't understand the basics so all of your scenarios are fucking stupid and show your horrible lack of understanding.
>What do you suggest is better?
Short swords. Basic swords. Spears. Knives. Hammers. Axes.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword
You're so fucking stupid that you don't even have any clue what I'm calling you stupid. Good job, champ.

>> No.39908894

>>39904377
Yeah, that's a pretty cool one. Do weapons like that have a name?

>> No.39909523

>>39905522
If I'm not mistaken, the Romans pretty much used the same weapons as the Greeks and other Italians until Brennus came and fucked their bitches. After that, they switched to a more Gallic fighting style (heavier reliance on short swords, as well as large shields and chainmail).

>> No.39909600

>>39907489
Bro, bro, do you even know about short swords.

They were the premier side arm for shield wall and massed infantry formations for well over 1000 years running.

>> No.39910097

>>39904476
Yeah, as pointed out, "dao" = "saber" = single edged curved blade. Doesn't matter if you have a small one handed handle or a 3 meter stick attached.

>> No.39910111

>>39908894
Shit, that might be concept art for a plot weapon in an MMO I play.

>> No.39910126

>>39905612

And yet, a coup d´etat made by a Roman General was needed to end the party.

>> No.39910164

>>39906640
Not in a series of 1v1's vs a guy with three glocks.

>> No.39910170

>>39908894
I don't think we really have a specific name for the kind of weapon, it's more that the IRL example of this would be, hm, some African spears. I think it's the iklwa, though not every iklwa gets to those proportions, most probably have significantly shorter heads.

>> No.39910184

>>39910170
There's the nipnongese Nagamaki.

>> No.39910205

>>39904953
Despite what DnD tells you any knight who can actually afford armour will be travelling with at least one servant and probably a few soldiers.

>> No.39910208

>>39910170
>>39910184
And then there is the swordstaff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordstaff

>> No.39910212

>>39905046
This sword bayonet would like to speak to you.

>> No.39910216

>>39908627
Don't know where the other guy's gone, but I'll take up the standard.

>about balance
Are you suggesting swords are not balanced? Are you suggesting a staff is not balanced? I mean sure, but you've clearly got very poorly crafted weapons then.

>swinging weapons
Let me just stop you right there. Do you really think swords were swung in big slashing arcs like they show in the movies? Because they weren't. You used them for stabbing or quick cuts, because at the end of the day you have a fairly long, very sharp knife and it's going to slide into flesh with not much pressure. Against unarmoured targets it only takes a couple of sudden jabs and they're bleeding out on the floor, and against armoured targets you have the halfswording and whatnot the other guy mentioned.

>Polearms are faster
So the big stick with a bunch of metal on one end is faster (and more balanced) than just the big stick? Or half/a third that length of just metal? No.

>Quarterstaves
>Non-lethal
I take it you've never been hit in the head with a big stick. Because if you had, you'd be dead. Humans are fairly easy to kill with hard strikes, and staves can get a lot of speed on them because you have leverage. And getting thwacked in the temple or neck or ribs is going to incapacitate you or kill you.

>the rest
I can't salvage any kind of argument from that

>> No.39910256

>>39906966
>not a good learning weapon

Which is why it was the core weapon of many fencing schools and is the most popular HEMA weapon right? Swords are also incredibly quick.

And all swords are 'high maintenance' but that does not change the fact even labourers could afford a sword by the mid 1300's if they really wanted one. You are also not going to carry a polearm day to day, maces are less lethal than swords in unarmoured fighting. So a sword is the best jack of all trades weapon which was the point.

>> No.39910258

>>39910205
The servants and soldiers were probably cheaper than the guy's full armour and weapons.

>> No.39910296

>>39908627
You realise that the advice given by fencing masters was to swing and keep swinging while facing multiple people right?

And what the hell do you think a longsword is? You can also thrust with it by the way, its better at that than cutting most of the time.

>> No.39910304

>>39905781
Fuck you, I'll stay here with my titanic ballsack.

>> No.39910329

>>39905522
>longswords
>in antiquity

GET
THE
FUCK
OUT

Also, Romans also used spears.

>> No.39910331

ITT: Plebs who don't know a real man's weapon.

>> No.39910337

>>39910216
A quartersaff is still way less vulnerant than a sword or a spear. If your opponent has even a light armor (say a decent metl helmet and a padded jack), the staff will have a really hard time putting him out of commission quickly.

Sure staves can be lethal, but unless they manage to give a good fair strike on the head, they will have trouble doing so. Even with the lightest strike or the shortest push, a sword or a spear will inflict very serious wounds.

Matt Easton did imho a very good job talking about the quartestaff btw. A good weapon, but certainly not a magical stick of death... and overall they only have reach against the sword, while losing a lot of things.

>> No.39910342

>>39910331
Mah rhodok fellow free-citizen !

>> No.39910347

>>39910329
they had longswords. they may not have looked exactly the same, but they were longswords

>> No.39910353

>>39910331
>>39910342
KING GRAVETH (LONG MAY HE REIGN!)

>>39910216
>wear helmet

I am now completely unable to be killed by a quarterstaff user.

Quarterstaff a shit.

If you go to battle, put a fucking spearhead on your quarterstaff or go home, you limey Britcunt.

>> No.39910359

>>39910347
A long sword is not a longsword, you fucking retarded mongoloid. Learn some fucking history.

>> No.39910367

>>39910353
actually, whack them hard enough the helmet means all of dick.

>> No.39910369

>>39910184
Well, if you just want a sword/polearm hybrid there's that, the Chinese dadao, one of the maciejowski weapons, IIRC the falx and rhompia, and some odd bill-like Italian(?) things I can't remember the name off (pic, maybe beidana works).

Here though I thought a symmetrical, double-sided head was called for.

>>39910208
That's far beyond the sword/polearm hybrid proportions though, being a solid polearm through and through, sitting next to spears and partisans.

>> No.39910370

>>39910216
>Do you really think swords were swung in big slashing arcs like they show in the movies? Because they weren't.

But they were.

>Against unarmoured targets...

Completely irrelevant. "Armor or GTFO" was true in warfare since mid-1st millenia BC at the latest.

At the very least, anybody planning on having a fight wielded a shield and most likely wore a helmet. "Quick cuts" weren't going to do shit. You had to hammer the opponent until he was unable to raise or lower his shield in time.

By the way, everyone having a shield also ruined the day of people, who (like certain fappers on /tg/) thought a spear would be enough in a fight. Unless your opponent was stupid or unlucky, spears tended to get stuck, and then you had to use your sword to finish the opponent.

>> No.39910377

>>39910359
a longsword is literally a longsword. it has a longer blade and is used with 2 hands. its exactly the same.

>> No.39910384

>>39910370
>But they were.

no, the literally were not.

>> No.39910406

>>39910370
Well they weren't swung like in the movies...

Movies show swordsmen hacking their sword in the air like they're butchering an invisible mammoth.

Real swordfighting is a lot more graceful. Someone doing some 2h sword swinging almost becomes like ballet.

>> No.39910411

>>39910329
Celts had longswords. The ones found in Halstatt being the most famous.

Also India had them.
And the Indo-Iranians.
And the Chinks.
That's like a lot of people who had longswords in Antiquity.

>> No.39910412

>>39910353
A jab just below the ribs or a nice cracked shin might make you think otherwise. Besides which this was never about battle, this was about a weapon that's useful and versatile enough for a variety of situations.
>>39905894
>>39906676
I'm not saying it's a useful argument but it's the one we're having.

>>39910337
Ah, now that's more fair. Once you have some padding on it's not going to be as effective, but as you say a sword or spear is still going to work. So I'll stand by what that guy further up said.

>> No.39910421

>>39910406
>Someone doing some 2h sword swinging almost becomes like ballet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhNnwby--yQ

>> No.39910465

>>39910406
>Real swordfighting is a lot more graceful.

No, it isn't. Go watch some videos from reconstruction tournaments, where people are actually trying to win, instead of just enacting a performance. Just keep in mind that they still actively trying not to hurt each other, and the opposite would be true IRL.

>> No.39910485

>>39910465
Are you implying sword combat isn't graceful?

Either you're retarded, blind, or you have no fucking aesthetic sense or in other words you're fucking autistic.

>>39910412
Yeah, and if your opponent jabs you below the ribs or in the leg with his sword, you don't have bruises or broken bones, YOU FUCKING BLEED TO DEATH!

>> No.39910506

>>39910485
>or in the leg with his sword

Irrelevant to the discussion as it may be, this one's characterful enough to be posted.

>> No.39910508

>>39908894
>Yeah, that's a pretty cool one. Do weapons like that have a name?

"Shaka Zulu Instant Empire Just Add IMPI"

>> No.39910552

>>39904134
has tg ever homebrewed a fate/sn game

>> No.39910597

>>39910411

>Nr. of longswords in image: 0

Bro, you should stop letting D&D tell you how swords look. Longswords are called longswords because they are, this'll be a shocker, long. The swords in that image are just swords.

>> No.39910611

>>39910597
you fucking retard, those swords on those people belt are the length of a longsword.

>> No.39910620

>>39910597
>Sword pretty much runs the length of almost an entire Indian guy's leg.
>It ain't long guys!

>> No.39910638

>>39904134
Point beats edge.

>> No.39910655

>>39905046

Because Torgue said so.

>> No.39910694

>>39910485
Firstly that's not the point, the point was that staves can be lethal even if someone has a helmet on. The other guy was literally arguing that a quarterstaff couldn't be used to kill someone. Furthermore, the original argument was that a sword or quarterstaff would be the most versatile weapon available as they're reasonably effective against a variety of opponents in a variety of situations and easy to carry around.

>> No.39910787

The question isn't whether your opponent is armored or not but rather are you armored or not.

If you don't have armor then you need a shield. Unless you're suicidal but I'm assuming you're sane. Mostly sane. Anyhow, if you have a shield then you can only wield your weapon single handedly. This kills the polearm since the entire point is that you can use the length to get more leverage. With only one hand you've got only the distance between you're thumb and pinkie to work with.

A sword is better for fighting with a shield. It's shorter and less reliant on leverage than a polearm and you've got a bigger blade to work with.

On the other hand, if you do have armor, a polearm works wonders. You can put two hands on it and make absolutely bone crushing blows. Blows that smash through even the finest armor. The Duke of Burgundy can attest to this. Add to this the reach of a polearm and you've got all you need.

Pic related. I'd love to see what one of these does to an armored knight.

>> No.39910808

>>39910411
A long sword isn't a longsword.

The long sword in your image clearly has a one-handed grip.

Therefore it's a long sword. Not a longsword.

>> No.39910813

>>39910611
>>39910620
One-handed grip. Can't be a longsword.

It's just a long sword.

Fuck you two are retarded cunts.

>> No.39910823

>>39910808
>>39910813
A better term would be a broadsword or arming sword. There's a lot of fuzziness in the definitions as you could use an arming sword with two hands.

>> No.39910842

>>39905019

That isn't funny

>> No.39910843

>>39910787

While I'm not speaking against swords, wouldn't, while weapon & shield-ing, a good length ax, hammer or pick with a pointy bit on top often be better than the sword?

The heavier blow from the unbalanced weapon would shock the opponent and batter the shield better while you have a shield to block, no?

>> No.39910844

>>39910787
>Pic related. I'd love to see what one of these does to an armored knight.
Not much. That version of the Ji stayed around a timeframe of like 700's BC- 400's AD China, when armor among even the most heavily armed Chinese infantryman was pretty basic.

To deal with the appearance of chainmail, platey bits of latter Chinese armor, the Ji Dao (seen here in the lower right corner) was invented. Had an axe-like blade and a tapered spike to get into gaps.

Otherwise, Ji seems to be great at hooking.

>> No.39910862

>>39910823
You can use an arming sword in two hands, but you'd be grasping the pommel for grip. At least, that's how I understand it.

>> No.39910863

>>39910813
>>39910808
>"The long broadsword (44", 112cm) had an extremely wide blade and could be used one or two handed."

>> No.39910870

>>39910694
>quarterstaff
>easy to carry around
huh no... for long walks, maybe, but for everyday life, it's absolutely not easy to carry a 180cm pole weapons around. Besides you can were a sword at your side, but you're forced to carry a staff in your hands.

>> No.39910872

>>39910863
>broadsword

Like I said, and as the literature clearly shows. It's not a longsword.

It's just a long sword.

>> No.39910896

>>39910870
>*clank*
>WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT?
>oh just my quarterstaff
>THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? MOTHERFUCKING BRUCE LEE?
>no, i just... w-well quarterstaffs are useful weapons and e-easy to carry arou-
>THE FUCK YOU'RE SAYING? YOU KEEP KNOCKING MEAD ON THE FLOOR, SLAMMING MY PATRONS IN THE FACE AND YOU KNOCKED MY MOUNTED WYVERN ON THE GROUND EASY TO CARRY AROUND MY ASS!

And that's how Mr. Quarterstaff got kicked out of the tavern.

>> No.39910930

>>39910843
Long impact weapon are very unwieldy, you take just too much type recovering your blows. Besides when you fight weapon+shield, the shield is the main weapon, not the other way around. The shield does the work, then your other weapon (sword, axe, whatever) exploit it and wounds the enemy.
Well that is if you talk about fairly large shields (60cm and above in diameter for instance), buckler don't apply.

Besides, impact weapons are really good and useful against heavy armor or on a horse where recovering is less of an issue.

>>39910787
>if you have a shield then you can only wield your weapon single handedly. This kills the polearm
Lots and lots of culture used successfully spear and shield though. and even with long spears like the greeks and their 7ft long spears.

>> No.39910948

>>39910331
That spike on the handle looks like it'd be pretty fucking hazardous to the user, unless the user had a perfect unshakable grip.

>> No.39910951

>>39904134
Didn't king Authur get his/her head chopped in that particular engagment?

>> No.39910961

>>39910948
How, are you fucking retarded?

The spike is towards the edge.

As in, unless you're about to chop your own face off, the spike will be pointing AWAY from you.

>> No.39910964

>>39905612
It took them quite a while though.

>> No.39910971

>>39910872
a longsword and a broadsword are the same thing, retard.

>> No.39910988

>>39910971
Isn't "broadsword" to differentiate in later years from a rapier type sword which became common?

>> No.39910997

>>39906565
I'd like to see you clear a room with that.

>> No.39911001

>>39910988
Usually, yes. And longsword were a catch-all term for two-handed swords too.

>> No.39911006

>>39910961
> finger twitches a little
> touches the sharpened spike tip
> oh shit I just sliced my finger open
> fuck I can't grip properly like this
> fail cascade initiated
It would be a pretty good handguard if it weren't a sharpened spike, though.

>> No.39911008

>>39910988
More smallsword than rapier, broadsword is a term that doesn't really fit until we get to the 18th century, perhaps late 17th too, where we apply it to things like basket hilted swords with double edged blades (as opposed to the single edged ones, which we call backsword blades). At that point the rapier is yesterdays fashion in most of Europe.

Pic: a backsword and a broadsword.

>> No.39911012

>>39910971
No you retarded cunt.

A longsword is a sword with a two-handed grip. Learn some military history before you open your retarded faggot mouth.

>> No.39912118

>>39904134
Seibah is pretty moe.

>> No.39912120

>>39910930
>Lots and lots of culture used successfully spear and shield though. and even with long spears like the greeks and their 7ft long spears.

Mostly because the reach lends it'self well to formation fighting but it looses it's offensive power in one hand. At Cynoscephilae the greeks managed to push the romans up and down a hill butthey couldn't break the romans and the romans eventually outflanked and destroyed the greeks. As a general rule, if the spearmen weren't in formation they tended to go down to sword and axemen.

>> No.39912137

Post more polearms

>> No.39912200

>>39912137
Using spears against other people in full plate instead of halberds does not seem very effective.

>> No.39912465

>>39905206
The halberd was the staple melee weapon for a long time after guns were invented and spread.
It and the Quarterstaff are dubbed as the perfect weapons by George Silver who sword-fags seem to love despite him shitting on swords whenever he can.

>> No.39912490

>>39905612
Look at you believing the simplest version your teachers taught you.
Rome fell for economic reasons and inner political strife with nobles gaining an unholy level of influence as land owners since they were denied from doing anything else to do with trade.

>> No.39912505

>>39912120
I recently discovered that Greek's, in the pre-Hellenic World type thing, fought wars very differently than... well, everyone else. While effective against others playing by the same rules, it had some issues against others.

>> No.39912512

>>39905046
>Why aren't arrows shaped like swords?
Heard you were talking shit

>> No.39912535

>>39905781
Not knowing that the Christians really did burn Rome and Nero was just a fuckwit who instead of helping people during the fires choose to sing a ballad mourning them oh and after the fire was put out he decided to build a new palace which really pissed of the citizens.

Until Konstantin the Great the Christians in Europe acted like the sand niggers of today and burned what they didn't like.

Konstantin just forced their religious leaders along with the leaders of all other faiths to integrate the Roman law into their faith as much as possible or he would put them to the sword if he even heard the tiniest bit of unrest.

>> No.39912612

>>39910808
You are mistaking a bastard sword for a long sword.
Bastard swords are a kind of long swords but not all long swords are bastards.

>> No.39912667

>>39912512
>Literally a arrowhead
>Turned into a arrowhead

>> No.39913166

>not wearing your sword at all times
>not keeping your polearm at home until it's time to go to war

>> No.39913225

>>39911012
you mean like those swords in the fucking picture we are talking about? the one that right over it says "used with one or two hands"? you god damn idiot

>> No.39913353

>>39910212
It becomes a spear wen attached to a gun, you idiot

>> No.39913383

>>39910370
>By the way, everyone having a shield also ruined the day of people, who (like certain fappers on /tg/) thought a spear would be enough in a fight.

No, retard. Polearms are highly effective against shields because they can be thrust at more angles than any other weapon type.

>> No.39913475

>>39913353
You asked 'why weren't bayonets just swords attached to guns'.

And that is exactly what a sword bayonet is.

>> No.39913476

>>39908627
>>39908554
>>39907405
>Argument about practical traveling weapon
>These niggas arguing about armored opponents
>Nigga who the fuck walks around in full armor all day
>Like shit if you're in armor you're probably already in war, or like a guard or something

>> No.39913520

>>39905934

>> No.39913523

>> No.39913534

>>39913476
>Argument about practical traveling weapon
That was never the point of contention, you illiterate mouthbreather

>> No.39913541

>> No.39913552

>>39904134

Correct, because this badass motherfucker did exist.

This badass motherfucker is also superior to any other melee weapon ever, and you can't prove me wrong.

>> No.39913564

>> No.39913576

>>39907445
weeaboo go home

>> No.39913648

>>39913534
If something is a 'good all rounder' which is what was being discussed it needs to be practical and effective for the 99% of the time when you are not armoured on the battlefield. Which a sword is and a polearm isn't.

>> No.39913810

>>39913648
Swords are not inherently better than polearms because you aren't wearing armor. Stop being retarded. Polearms are the choice weapon in many more situations than a sword, both in situation context and historical context. Fuck yourself.

>> No.39913817

>>39912535
Actually, Nero set the fires in the slums so he could build a gigantic bathhouse over the ruins.

>> No.39913851

>>39913383
>because they can be thrust at more angles than any other weapon type.

Not him but this is wrong. The back end of the shaft ends up getting tangled with the user. A good one handed thrusting sword should be able to replicate any angle a spear can use.

>> No.39913872

>>39913552
The halberd is virtually the same thing but with an axe head rather than a hammer. The Axe gave it more penetrating power and with that length it could hack through armor.

>> No.39913905

>>39913810
No, swords are better because they don't suffer as much from being used with a shield. Most heavier polearms need two hands.

Unless you don't use a shield.

>> No.39913910

>>39913810
You can't fucking carry a polearm around with you wherever you go, and it still will only be useful when you have enough room to maneuver. Even if it were effective, it wouldn't be practical.

>> No.39913911

>>39913851
>this is wrong.
It isn't.
>The back end of the shaft ends up getting tangled with the user.
No. It does not.
>A good one handed thrusting sword should be able to replicate any angle a spear can use.
Wrong. You cannot overhand grip a sword nor does it have the same length to replicate the effectiveness of the angles. You also cannot use two hands which is a huge disadvantage when trying to attack a non-sword standard angles. And because the sword is much shorter, changing attack angles is much slower. Swords rely either on swinging at various angles, which is easily blocked by a shield because of the horizontal length (you roughly only need 4 positions to block any sword swing, like in fencing) and for thrusting a sword can only be thrust effectively at one angle - straight on.

Try again, son. Though I doubt your next post will be any more informed.

>> No.39913926

Why does 4chan tism out so hard about polearms

the only context it'll be used is in fiction, and who gives a shit there because it's not real

the spear autism is real

>> No.39913953

>>39913810
So basically you are implying you would carry a poleaxe or a halberd with you when you travel.

I suggest you learn what an 'all rounder' is and how little time even professional soldiers spent in actual battlefield combat. Or are you suggesting people carried spears with them instead of swords most of the time?

The sword is the best all rounder because it has more reach than any other day to day carry weapon bar the quarterstaff, is more lethal in unarmoured combat than the mace, staff or the axe and is more than capable of being effective on the battlefield as well. Nobody would bother having one as a backup if it was ineffective.

>> No.39913960

>> No.39913969

>>39913911
You realise you can use a sword with an overhand/ice pick grip right?

>> No.39913971

>>39912512
that is a book you faggot

>> No.39913984

>>39913905
>they don't suffer as much from being used with a shield.
Polearms do not suffer from being used with a shield. And that's not even getting into guiges.
>Most heavier polearms need two hands.
Two handed weapons need two hands. This applies to swords too. But there are a multitude of polearms that are effectively used with one hand.

>>39913910
>You can't fucking carry a polearm around with you wherever you go
Then how the fuck did armies go anywhere.
>and it still will only be useful when you have enough room to maneuver
Retard. Polearms do not have to be used at their full length. That's the advantage of a shaft. You can hold it at any point and still use it. Polearms can effectively use very tight swings or wide arcs depending on what you need at the moment. Also, thrusting.

>> No.39914044

>>39913984
Are you really comparing an army on the march with day to day life?

People travelling or going about their business do not carry polearms with them, they use large knives or swords. You cannot carry a polearm on your person without using a hand, swords can be carried hands free.

>> No.39914071

>>39913984
>Then how the fuck did armies go anywhere
They sure as hell weren't marching in formation with they're polarms every waking moment. You fucking store the gear.

>> No.39914096

>>39913953
The sword delusion in this one is strong.
>Or are you suggesting people carried spears with them instead of swords most of the time?
In most periods of history, yes. And the thing carried more than polearms was daggers. Not swords.
>it has more reach than any other day to day carry weapon bar the quarterstaff
Wrong. It pales in comparison to polearms. Being the colossal retard that you are, you probably think that means spears, spears and spears. No, it also means long axes and long hammers which are both weapons and tools making them much more common than swords (not even getting into the economic aspect) for everyday use.
>is more lethal in unarmoured combat than the mace, staff or the axe and is more than capable of being effective on the battlefield as well
Wow. Just wow. Hammers and axes saw infinitely more use than the sword on both the battlefield and off the battlefield. They are also more lethal than a sword in more situations. Both armored and unarmored. They are also more effective against shields.

>>39914044
>>39914071
>People travelling or going about their business do not carry polearms with them, they use large knives or swords
Wrong. Daggers and polearms are the most common day to day weapon. Swords literally have no utility outside of combat and do not even excel in most combat situations. Pole axes/hammers along with knives were the most commonly used weapons because they also double as tools and are far cheaper than swords no matter what the age.

You are some stupid motherfuckers. I suggest you go read an actual book.

>> No.39914104

>>39912535
>the Christians really did burn Rome
>acted like the sand niggers of today and burned what they didn't like
Take your bullshit back to /pol/

>> No.39914120

>>39914104
>what is the library of alexandria
No one fucking knows because christians chimped out and burned it.

>> No.39914256

>>39914096
>people carried spears most of the time

Are you trolling or do you not really not understand that people did not carry pole weapons with them outside of soldiers marching or on the battlefield? You think civilians carried spears or two handed axes with them while travelling?

And if you do not understand why a short, blunt impact weapon is less effective in umarmoured combat than a sharp cutting and impaling weapon that is both more wieldy and has better reach there is no helping you.

Axes and hammers designed for combat are radically different in design to axes and hammers used as tools. You also don't walk around with a fucking sledgehammer on your person day to day.

>shields

Not seen outside of the battlefield unless you include bucklers. And anybody who has a buckler also has a sword.

Find me a SINGLE academic book that says normal civilians would carry a sledgehammer or battlefield polearms with them in their day to day lives.

>> No.39914533

>maces are inferior to swords for unarmoured fighting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBBC4MX5Nxg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtYKkwpx1gw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQBds6ZYERE

>swords can be carried conveniently day to day unlike polearms

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVFYfJh4eY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpUcsIwW0kQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVFYfJh4eY8

>by the High Middle Ages swords were readily available to most people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9SvgWJNSd8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy1fcRG0A3g

Lets all stop making ignorant claims and educate ourselves shall we.

>> No.39916114

>>39913911
>You cannot overhand grip a sword
Why not?
>You also cannot use two hands which is a huge disadvantage when trying to attack a non-sword standard angles
Why not?
>And because the sword is much shorter, changing attack angles is much slower
Logically, a shorter weapon has less leverage against it so it's faster.
>Swords rely either on swinging at various angles, which is easily blocked by a shield because of the horizontal length (you roughly only need 4 positions to block any sword swing, like in fencing) and for thrusting a sword can only be thrust effectively at one angle - straight on.
Other than the polearms that can hook, are most polearms any different?

>> No.39916321

>>39913984
>Polearms do not suffer from being used with a shield. And that's not even getting into guiges.
Other than a spear, how many polearms can be used to their full potential one handed?
Can you name them?
>Two handed weapons need two hands. This applies to swords too.
But most swords are designed for one hand.
>But there are a multitude of polearms that are effectively used with one hand.
Name them and the spear doesn't count. It's a pale shadow of what two handed spear fighting is.

>> No.39916365

>>39914096
>Wrong. Daggers and polearms are the most common day to day weapon.
It's cumbersome to run around with a spear slung on your back. The ends tend to get caught on things and low ceilings tend to snag the tip. The only other option is to hold it in hand all the time. It's also impossible to conceal it under a cloak.

>> No.39916829

Man, swords sure do suck. I wonder why they were invented at all? Truly pole-arms are the one true weapon. I mean, why in the fucking world would anyone use anything else for melee combat?

I'm starting to doubt swords even existed. No soldier in their right mind would get within 10 feet of one (thanks the superior reach and killing power of his mighty polearm!) The only rational explanation for the existence of sword is glaives that had the head broken off. Historians found the bladed end and in all their retardation assumed the piece of shit was a weapon in itself.

>> No.39916836

>>39905894
Fewer combat situations, anon. Fewer.

>> No.39916875

Carrying weapons on your back essentially renders them useless. If your attacked you'll be killed as you struggle to draw it. If you can't wear it on your hip then it can't qualify as a practical weapon.

>> No.39917258

>Swords historically a sidearm, civilian weapon, and sometimes an officer's weapon
>In fiction about a hero in a nonmilitary context, their weapon of choice is usually a sword
>Handguns historically a sidearm, civilian weapon, and sometimes an officer's weapon
>In fiction about a hero in a nonmilitary context, their weapon of choice is usually a handgun

>> No.39917361

>> No.39917387

>>39917361
Nonsensical gamist bullshit and you know it.

>> No.39917428

>>39904134
AXES >>>>>> POLEARMS
seriously, haven't you ever played Fire Emblem.

>> No.39917536

>>39917258
>Swords historically a sidearm, civilian weapon, and sometimes an officer's weapon

Yet another poster thinking he has something to contribute despite knowing fuck-all about history.

>> No.39917602

>>39904775
>Swords were, for huge chunks of human history in various cultures, primarily used as side arms. That is to say they were the weapon you used in the event your primary war weapon (typically a polearm) were rendered unavailable, if only temporarily.

I don't know where /tg/ got this idea, but it needs to end.
It's just not true.
It's not corroborated by material evidence, art, martial manuals, or anything else except your bullshit.

>> No.39917657

>> No.39917711

>>39914256
>And if you do not understand why a short, blunt impact weapon is less effective in umarmoured combat than a sharp cutting and impaling weapon

Swords also are reasonably more effective in armoured combat. According to the analysis of wounds based on exhuming post-battle burials, the most common cause of losing a melee fight was a slashing wound to the leg under both one's shield and whatever body armor a typical Medieval footmen had, followed by several finishing strikes to the head/neck area. Sheer mass was not your friend. You had to keep your weapon relatively light, unless your typical enemy was so armored, that you had no choice but to try cracking him open with a mace/pick or something. Axes/hammers offered no real benefits over swords without increasing their weight, which slowed down your swings and generally got you killed, so, barring again full plated knights struggling against each other's marvels of protection, axes and blunt weapons were weapons of shitty grunts who could not afford a sword.

>> No.39917857

>>39917711
What period are these burials from? That sounds like a Viking era deal.

Maces and hand axes weigh the same as an arming sword, the balance and low reach is the real issue. And once you get into the High Middle Ages swords can cost literally pennies, even the poorest of professional soldiers can afford them.

>> No.39917878

You're at the bar with your gf when pic related comes up and slaps her on the ass. What do?

>> No.39917947

>>39917258
I know, right?
And then you have morons like >>39917536
Sword and handgun fags are the worst.
>yfw rifles and polearms will never get their due with the common nerd

>> No.39917982

>>39917947
I fucking love rifles and polearms. Rifles to me are pretty fucking cool, same with spears and polearms of all types.

>> No.39917988

>>39917857
Visby, 1361 and Towton 1461 produced the best-known burial exhumations.

>> No.39917990

>>39904134
Depends on, don't expect spears to be any usefull during that city siege.

>> No.39918073

>>39917990
>don't expect spears to be any usefull during that city siege.

>> No.39918099

>>39917990

>> No.39918104

>>39904134
RIGHT TOOL FOR THE JOB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SPECIFIC WEAPON

>> No.39918169

>>39918073
>>39918099
Let me rephrase that: Good look using it effectively anywhere but an open area.

>> No.39918286

>>39918169
A common misconception. You can shift your hand position on a polearm allowing usage in close quarters.

>> No.39918365

>>39905869

>> No.39919334

>>39911012
Listen you shitstain faggot, all of these super specific sword names were 'codified' centuries after the weapon in question fell out of favor by limp-wristed ivory tower pederasts.

>> No.39919882

>>39918286
Still less effective than a sword. More over, the back end ends up getting tangled in stuff since you can't keep your eyes on it.

>> No.39920203

>>39919882
>Still less effective than a sword
And a sword is less effective than a dagger. What's your point?
>More over, the back end ends up getting tangled in stuff since you can't keep your eyes on it.
First off, it's moreover and you are a fag for using it. Secondly, no. Anywhere you can use a sword effectively, a spear can be handled effectively. Swords need room to swing and to thrust properly. Spears have variable range and gain more power for tighter swings/thrusts due to its leverage. If you're worried about your polearm's length, then it's time to pull out the dagger. Not the sword.

>> No.39920621

>>39904134
mordred pls go

>> No.39920653

Get with the times people

>> No.39920737

>>39905799
I want a rocket spear now

>> No.39921191

>>39905832
So tell me, when you hear (not read) the sound "red", how do you know whether it's referring to the color, or the past tense of "read"?

For that matter, how do you differentiate between "read" in the present tense and "read" in the past tense in text?

What about "lead" the metal and "lead" the action?

>> No.39923202

>>39920203
>And a sword is less effective than a dagger.
No, The sword has reach.
> Secondly, no. Anywhere you can use a sword effectively, a spear can be handled effectively. Swords need room to swing and to thrust properly.
The gladius gives lie to this statement.It was meant for close in combat with almost no room to move. Push comes to shove you can simply press the blade by the hilt into the throat of your opponent although a strike with the pommel or hilt would be more practical.
>Spears have variable range and gain more power for tighter swings/thrusts due to its leverage
If you wield the spear two handed then yes, this is true. You can choke up on the spear for all the leverage you need. However, this means you need armor since you're not holding a shield. If you've got armor then you should be wielding something more powerful than just a spear. I recommend a halberd or poleaxe. Greatswords are only useful for bodyguard work.

If you don't have armor then you need a shield. This means you've got to wield the spear one handed. This limits your leverage to just the width of your hand. If you move your hand away from the center of balance the spear becomes less responsive, the weight fights against you. The back wants to drop or swing out and you've got to constantly reign it in. Also, because the back of the spear isn't in your field of view you've got to guess where it is and this can lead to trouble if there's furniture about.

>> No.39923286

>>39920737
Challenge accepted. 1/2" PVC pipe for the shaft. Pack it full of black powder. Seal the front with an end cap and duct tape some kitchen knives to it. Seal the back with some paper. Ignite the paper to launch.

>> No.39925945

>>39923202
>No, The sword has reach.
But apparently you're close enough for the polearm to be at a disadvantage. The only time that happens is when swords would also be at a disadvantage due to length unless they are a dagger.
>The gladius gives lie to this statement
Except it doesn't if you actually know what the fuck you're talking about. The gladius was used for a very short period of time before it was phased out by the longer Spatha (which is totally fucking your reasoning of the Gladius being used for its shortness).
>If you wield the spear two handed then yes, this is true
It's true for single handed spears also.
>However, this means you need armor since you're not holding a shield.
No, it doesn't. Polearms in two hands can be used effectively for defense and also there's the matter of guiges. Alexander of Macedonia says "Fuck you, mongrel".
>If you've got armor then you should be wielding something more powerful than just a spear.
This isn't an RPG, numbnuts. Halberds and poleaxes fill different niches than spears.
>Greatswords are only useful for bodyguard work.
You say some dumb shit. Get out of fantasy land.
>This limits your leverage to just the width of your hand
Holy fuck you don't even know how leverage works.
>If you move your hand away from the center of balance the spear becomes less responsive, the weight fights against you
Properly balanced spears can be used effectively at the back and front of the shaft even with one hand unless it's a long spear that isn't made for one handed use in the first place.

Bro, come back in twenty years after you've gotten familiar with the subject you are trying to discuss.

>> No.39930533

>>39912535
>Nero was just a fuckwit who instead of helping people during the fires choose to sing a ballad mourning them

Once Nero heard of the fire in Rome he opened up the palace as a relief centre and emergency shelter. He's remembered for his inaction because he wasn't in Rome at the time.

Source: Tacitus

Also I believe Nero actually founded Romes proto-fire department, but I could be wrong on that one.

>> No.39930805

>>39904577
lumberfag plz go
love,
DP Kryss and studded leather masterrace

>> No.39930897

>>39925945
You do realise the spear is not effective against armour which is why the glaive and then the halberd came about right? A halberd can do the same job of keeping people at bay as a spear of the same length. And he is right, the greatsword was usually used by people who had to defend the standard/commander among the Landsknecht companies.

You claim a fucking halberd or ten foot spear only needs the same amount of space as a sword and you call other people ignorant? You realise professional soldiers carried SWORDS for use in a pike square or close melee not a dagger right? As for the gladius it was used for at least 500 years, that is a 'very short period' to you?

>> No.39931027

So, if armour penetration isn't an issue, wether because they're unarmoured or you sat on the sword and your shit will literally eat through armour in nanoseconds, what weapon has the most utility in the most number of combat situations?

>> No.39931225

>>39930897
>You do realise the spear is not effective against armour which is why the glaive and then the halberd came about right?
That's completely false. Spears are excellent against armor. Glaives are not superior in armor penetration and made more for slashing. Halberds have the same penetration potential but were designed for repelling cavalry and were more cumbersome to wield than basic spears.
>And he is right
No, he isn't. Doppelsoldners wielding zweihanders were for combating pikes on the front lines of the formation.
>You claim a fucking halberd or ten foot spear only needs the same amount of space as a sword and you call other people ignorant?
Yes, you are an ignorant fuck. A 10ft spear is a pike, dipshit.
>You realise professional soldiers carried SWORDS for use in a pike square or close melee not a dagger right?
Both were used and was up to the soldier. Either way, it was simply a sidearm to polearms and firearms.
>As for the gladius it was used for at least 500 years, that is a 'very short period' to you?
The gladius was a mainstay from about 387 BC until the end of the BC/early AD when the Spatha replaced it as the standard sword (which lasted until about 600 AD). And yes, that is incredibly short for a culture that lasted 12 centuries.

Stop being full of shit.

>> No.39931479

>>39931225
>10 foot spear
>pike

No, its a normal fucking spear. A pike is over 10 feet. And either way, it is objectively false to claim you need as much room to use a normal sword effectively as a polearm.

>halberd
>repelling cavalry

So something a spear or pike can do more easily, I suppose you think the armour defeating properties of the halberd are just an accident. Also the axial spike of a halberd is far superior for trying to penetrate armour than the head of most spears. There is a reason nobody who had a choice was using normal spears against people in plate armour when there are so many better options available.

>gladius
>incredibly short usage

It was actually over 500 years and that is not 'incredibly short' by any sane or intelligent definition. The Spatha was only used by Rome for 400 years yet you are not calling that a 'short period'.

I suggest you go watch Matt Easton videos until you stop saying ignorant things.

>> No.39934459

>>39910508
im sorry but what is a IMPI?

>> No.39934541

>using a meme weapon

>> No.39934639

>>39910111
>Mabinogi

My Milletian.

>> No.39934650

>>39934639
Sorry, forgot I had my PSN in the Name field. I just came out of a Dragon's Dogma general.

>> No.39934977

>>39917602
>art
Things designed to be pretty
>martial manuals
The (remaining) majority of which were designed around duels

Also, it's just basic fucking sense. Why would anyone use a short blade and nothing else? There are two situations where a single-handed sword is your most useful weapon - when the enemy is too close for anything longer and when you're on the ground.

On the ground as in lying down, as a result of being seriously injured, falling over, etc.

>> No.39935022

>>39934977
>lol, people never really used swords, they were just pretty

>> No.39935051

>>39934459
Impi. It's a Zulu word without an exact English equivalent. It's sort of the catchall term encompassing 'squad', 'regiment', 'corps', 'army', and the like. Any group of soldiers.

The fact that anon put it in all caps makes me think he was making some sort of reference

>> No.39935053

>>39934977
>There are two situations where a single-handed sword is your most useful weapon

Or, you know. The vast, vast majority of the time when you are in a civilian context and do not want to lug around a spear.

>> No.39935075

>>39935022
I didn't mean to imply that, if I did.

>> No.39935092

>>39935053
Or when you also want to wield a shield.

>> No.39935182

>>39931479
>The pike was a long weapon, varying considerably in size, from 3 to 7.5 metres (10 to 25 feet) long
Fuck off you colossal retard

>It was actually over 500 years
No. I already gave you the dates.

>> No.39935217

>>39935051
I think it's a reference to Civ V, Impis are the Zulu's unique unit that get a free ranged attack when entering a space adjacent to an enemy and get a bonus against gunpowder units. Combine that with the upkeep cuts and lower level requirements that the Zulu civ has and you've got a swarm of tough, experienced units that can really wreck other civs.

>> No.39935248

>>39905139
Daggers are just rocks that are crud at bashing things.

>> No.39935255

>>39935182
And the dates were completely wrong, what is your point. The Gladius was used by the Romans into the 3rd century AD at least. Several hundred years is still a significant length of time in any case, pretending otherwise is just stupid.

>> No.39935360

>>39935255
>And the dates were completely wrong
Nope.
>The Gladius was used by the Romans into the 3rd century AD at least
Nope.
>Several hundred years is still a significant length of time in any case
It was 300 years and that's a piss in a can compared to how long they used other armaments such as the pilum and the spatha (which was used for 600 years)

Fuck yourself, retard.

>> No.39935406

>>39904134
What's the sauce on this one? I'm assuming it's some kind of F/SN artbook, but I'd like to know what. (I'm very interested because it has Mordred.)

>> No.39935523

>>39935360
>fuck yourself retard

Did a gladius molest your parents? I cannot think of why you would go on such an irrational and obviously false tirade against it.

Now lets do a little quiz. Is the 3rd century BC to the early 3rd century AD (when the gladius was used by the legions) a longer or shorter period of time than the 3rd century AD to the late 5th (When the spatha was used by the legions).

>> No.39935555

>>39935523
>using fake dates
Fucking yourself, assburgers

>> No.39935585

>>39904134
Who was a worse father, saber or the emperor?

>> No.39935601

>>39935555
Does it make you feel satisfied to tell lies on the internet for no good reason?

You realise that for the Spatha to have 600 years of use it would have to be used by the legions before Julius Caesar was born? Yet the Gladius was used for at least 150 years into the Imperial period.

When do you think Rome fell exactly?

>> No.39935634

>> No.39935653

>>39935634
I am now imagining a giant chainsaw with arms holding daggers instead of teeth.

>> No.39935678

>> No.39935733

>>39935601
The spatha was the primary sword all the way until 600 AD, troll.

>> No.39935814

>>39935733
>600 AD
>Empire fell in 476

And you are calling me a troll?

>> No.39935819

>>39935523
>>39935360
How about we all post some sources with dates to back up those points.

>> No.39935912

>>39917602
>>39917536
I want you guys to learn to read and then read on the topic.

However if you ca't read that well just look at these pictures in this thread. Note that those bearing pole arms have swords as side arm.
>>39917878
>>39912137
>>39910411
>>39909523
>>39908436
>>39905132
>>39905700

The reason people think swords are pole arms is because they were.

>> No.39935976

>>39914533
>he thinks HEMA and youtubers are valid sources
What a faggot.

>> No.39936012

>>39935092
You're a fucking moron. Not only are there specifically polearms to be used alongside shields, most armies in antiquity fielded heavy shields with their spearmen.

>> No.39936044

>>39935976
>the study of historical combat is not a valid source of information about historical combat
>a trained archaeologist/historian, weapons expert and historical combat coach is not a good source because he makes videos about his area of expertise

Now are you trolling or do you actually believe the idiotic thing you just said.

>> No.39936075

>>39936012
NO
NOOOO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
IT WAS DA SWORDZ I TELL YOU
SWORDZZZ

>> No.39936099

>>39904224
>You know, unless

>> No.39936191

>>39913926
lol the ironing

>> No.39937224

Do people seriously think people would arm themselves with just an arming sword before going into battle? No spear, no dagger? Is /tg/ playing a joke on me?

>> No.39938926

>>39925945
>But apparently you're close enough for the polearm to be at a disadvantage. The only time that happens is when swords would also be at a disadvantage due to length unless they are a dagger.
It's round the one to three foot range. The spear doesn't have enough room to reach full acceleration in distances shorter than that so you're essentially trying to push it in,
>It's true for single handed spears also.
But the best spear men used their weapons two handed.
>No, it doesn't. Polearms in two hands can be used effectively for defense and also there's the matter of guiges. Alexander of Macedonia says "Fuck you, mongrel".
Arrows.
Also, Alexander wore armor and still nearly died to an arrow.
>This isn't an RPG, numbnuts. Halberds and poleaxes fill different niches than spears.
And vis versa. In this case the spear is being displaced by the halberd and poleaxe as they have more power and versatility.
>You say some dumb shit. Get out of fantasy land.
The idea is that you swing the greatsword in continuous flowing patterns. With so much blade to work with you can intimidate a mob into staying away from your charge.
>Properly balanced spears can be used effectively at the back and front of the shaft even with one hand unless it's a long spear that isn't made for one handed use in the first place.
An object can only have one center of balance.

>Bro, come back in twenty years after you've gotten familiar with the subject you are trying to discuss.
This is the equivalent of a microphone drop. If I come up with an argument, even a bad argument after this you've basically forfited all rights to a reply.

>> No.39938995

>>39913960
+Long reach

>> No.39939029

>>39931225
>That's completely false. Spears are excellent against armor.
Maybe chain mail, and yes I'm aware that's redundant, but any sort of plate would resist a spear easily.
>Halberds have the same penetration potential but were designed for repelling cavalry and were more cumbersome to wield than basic spears.
The Halberd has most of it's weight on one end. This means that in a swing it can build up incredible kinetic energy. Charles the bold had his helmet cleaved through by a halberd strike.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action