whats the the "ultimate form" (most highly refined) of weapons like swords, axes, bows, etc?i know technically, you can always improve shit, but by the 1500's-1600's things had sorta reached an apex in design; you really start to see each culture converge in form before guns took overso, what was the last "real" (not ceremonial) form these types of weapons took before their abandonment?
>>65129388Well, for dealing with armor, you have polearms, estocs, rondel daggers. For unarmored, rapiers, sabres, various unarmored-fighting-swords (starting with the side sword and not changing very much from there).The funny thing about modern swords is, they never really converged on a single design. Infantry (officer) swords ranged from sabres to basically rapiers. Cavalry swords from basically sword-lances (in england and america) to sabres that would not have looked out of place in the 16th century (poland).
there really isnt one. firstly, because its all contextual. what's best on a horse with a musket and pike block is completely different to what's best on a ship, and that's completely different to if you're wearing plate armours. and if you're wearing plate, that's different to if they're using firearms, or not, and so on and so on and so on. the additional problem is, once you're past a certain point, they're all good enough. there's no deader than dead, etc. And even a bronze age Ewart Park or Chinese Warring states sword will get you to that point. So there really isnt any "best" out there. there's plenty that are pretty bad - you wouldnt want to be trying to use a congolese sword with smallsword fencing methods, but equally, trying to use a smallsword like you would a 15th C german longsword's going to break it in 3 seconds. So really, what it boils down to is preference of looks and appearance, and what era it was being used in, against what sort of other arms and armour.
>>65129415I think china issues a cavalry sabre right now, so yeah.
Isn’t the China/India border skirmish currently being fought with melee weapons? Maybe look at what they’re using
>>65129388Seems like everyone went to some sort of saber
>>65129427from what i've seen, they were basic post-modern melee weapons, not actual traditional weapons
>>65129449What is this shitHit up lk chen, hanwei, windlass or what's their name and get yourself some proper weaponry.
Depends heavily on the use case. I'd say the ultimate jack of all trade weapon, for a man in armour, is a poleaxe.
>>65129388>what was the last "real" (not ceremonial) form these types of weapons took before their abandonment?Bayonett
>>65129388https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e68nuAcSuWQ
>>65129581trvke
>>65129431More like that was the last role they were relevant in
>>65129388Swords peaked with the katana.
>>65130016Simple as
>>65129641imagine running someone through with your little pencil blade and he just keeps coming and chops you in the neck with a hatchet. Fencing is the most obscenely feminine hand to hand combat ever
>>65130016That's gross. I have a katana, wakazashi and tanto. That doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about, but that's gross.
>>65130576Happens even with beefier swords. You're supposed to give them a quick stab, extract the blade and parry the afterblow. Not run them through.
>>65129388For the army - halberdFor armored 1 on 1 combat - bec-de-corbinFor home defense - rapierFor everyday carry - smallsword
>>65129388The ultimate form of melee weapons? We started the melee arms race by knapping stone until we had a knife, and the culmination of thousands of years of trying to cut and stab each other ended with soldiers carrying a bushcraft knife for the field.
>>65130016Don’t make me culturally enrich your ass
>>65130576If you somehow fail to hit a vital organ that disables an enemy instantly like the heart or mayor arteries, with the lightest, most minmaxxed sword ever made, you would have also died from magdumping your subcompact 9mm into a charging moon cricket and missing an off switch. Those fencing foils look weak as fuck because they are meant to reduce the risk of actually stabbing someone as much as possible, and its a serious concern because of how lethal those stabs can actually be. You need to be higher than an astronaut to not feel being fully run through your chest, and they are cutting themselves on it more, possibly fatally, if they dont immediately stop moving.
>>65130796Supposed too isn't always what happens. Both you and your opponent decide they're going to go for a deep thrust you'll both end up way closer to each other than intended. I see a lot of people start flailing the sword above their head but i think the more historical response would be to just drop the sword and wrestle the person to contain their weapon
>>65129388Trench club.
>>65129431It's just fashion. No really. I'm not saying the sabre is a bad sword. It's just that war in that period was already an industrialised and mass-produced affair. The decision to use the sabre was a top-down decision. Even though there were soldiers who would fight with cold steel and depend on it, the choice of weapon wasn't decided by the one using it. While it's true that an officer could choose a wide variety of options within that framework of a "sabre", the fact remains that it was a choice outside of their control. If you wanted to use a double edged straight sword with minimal guard? Well tough luck, either make a custom one and disguise/make it as close as possible, or become the head of the board of the committee deciding a new sword and make everybody else use your preferred choice. For the rank and file it was even worse, they had to use what they were issued, no matter how good or bad it was. Just look at all those arguments about whether the cut or thrust was better, and (strongly related) whether straight or curved sabers were better. And the slow trickle of small improvements (and backsliding) in every iteration of a new model sword. And it's all because nobody could choose what weapon they could useThe fact is the best sword is the one that you choose, in the style you prefer, tailored for the method you choose.
>>65134564Frankly, I think across the multitude of national comittees and individual decisions, we get a pretty decent picture of what worked best. And that was majority slightly curved, (strong) minority straight swords.
>>65134564Middle east and Asia settled on saber style weapons long before industrialization though.
>>65130836>For armored 1 on 1 combat - bec-de-corbinNope. It's the lance, unless you add an additional qualifier for armored 1 on 1 combat on foot.
>>65134591The chinese used both straight and curved swords though.
>>65134591The classical saber is a lot more specific than just being a single-handed curved sword. The handle and guard are distinctive and a big part of what they are.
>>65134621Similar guards were used for straight swords though.
>>65134591Look, I'm not saying the sabre is a bad weapon. I'm just saying that weapons past a certain point in time were not chosen by their users, and those weapons must had been inferior to weapons that were chosen by their users, and all the cultural baggage that went along with it. And especially that these weapons were chosen by committee, probably sucked, which is why they kept releasing new models of it, they were never quite satisifed with what they had. As someone into British swords (cutlasses and sabres), there were problems with the handles, the guard, the tempering (!), the scabbards, all those little tricks of geometry in the handles, guards and blades that facilitated the fencing styles of the time that no one notices or talks about unless you study the minutiae, it's just a never ending cascade of failures/updates because the people who "designed" these weapons weren't the ones using them. It's like the command economy vs the free market. I doubt all the other countries did any better either.
>>65134651It's the combination that matters. As an aside, I think putting metal on your handle is peak disgusting and degenerate, it's surprising that the entire world copied that aspect of the saber (Japanese style handles are peak handles of course, perfect grip and feel, 100% molding to your hand's grip and you get the same position and orientation every time.). No I'm not trolling. Or a weeb.
>>65134676Or... those committees and general officers might have had a better understanding of what's needed than a bunch of illiterate plebs from the boonies.
>>65134778Yeah right. Half the time they couldn't even decide between straight and curved sabers, or even decide how heavily to place the point of balance. And then when they do get a good design they'll update it and remove half the changes they made. These guys would produce incredible wonders like cast iron handles with perfectly circular profiles (majority of Royal Navy cutlasses, for 150 years). Edge alignment? What's that? Needing friction to hold your sword? Clearly a myth! Imagine holding a sword with a handle no different to a poorly textured metal pipe, and letting that state of affairs go on for that long. You've also clearly never heard about all the absolute stupidity that goes on in all of the various sabre patterns. Let's not even get into the scabbards that blunted their swords. lmao, imagine just making scabbards that make your swords blunt and turning that into actual institutional knowledge for almost a century. Truly, a committee of inbred retards is superior to the warrior who knows what he's doing and gets the sword he wants.
>>65134809>they couldn't even decide between straight and curved sabers, or even decide how heavily to place the point of balance.That just suggests that either decision was valid. Finding the optimal solution can be tricky to impossible, in many fields and matters.
>>65134824No it means that a sword is tailored to an individual, and giving everybody the same sword means trouble.
>>65134866That depends on what the goal is. If it's a fighting weapon? Yeah, absolutely, ergonomics matter, and one size does not fit all. If it's a symbol of rank and authority? Then it doesn't matter.
>>65134866>My sword is slighty suboptimal for meBoohoo.Your average soldier for most of history wouldn't dream of having a sword purpose-made for him. He took what he could afford and what was available.
>>65134875>Moving goalposts so far it's gone off the fieldlmao
WHACKU
>>65134879I'm new to the thread.>>65134878>He took what he could afford and what was available.Before industrialization was a thing arms and armor were not uniform. If you had a blacksmith making your weapon for you you'd tell him how big you wanted it. If you were grabbing whatever you could out of a random pile you'd pick something that suited you well.
>>65134878Even a poor soldier would have a selection of styles available to him. These styles would had been created by an amalgamation of the choices of people choosing what they wanted. There was a huge array of paraphernalia available and swords were easily custom fitted for people, e.g. the grip to the user's hands. Not to mention that people really could choose and personalize their sword, swords weren't special luxury objects unless you want them to be.Also, even officers of the sword-by-committee era couldn't choose what they wanted.
>>65134809>kvetching about British procurement from 200 years agoJudging by the ongoing Ajax fiasco this is a British problem, not an industrial cavalry problem.Someone post another Polish cav saber.
>>65134884Things that go BONK in the night.
>>65135176Evolve into bigger bonkers
Everyone ITT just failed to address the core issue with OPs question. The ultimate form of almost every melee weapon was defined by their usage as part of a greater military doctrine and not by itself.Sabers were the final evolution of swords because they were optimized for cavalry use in a way that still left them adequate for dismounted combat. But they had compromises that would have made them a shitty choice if transported back in time to the 11th-12th century where everyone had mail and kite shields. Someone with a renaissance Rapier would defeat someone with a longsword but a longsword would beat later iterations of foils and sideswords from range alone. A Roman Gladius or a Greek Kopis would do well in 18th century ship boarding. Its all relative to the shape combat would take according to the overal tech and society of the time, industrialization just led to the one sword they could make that would work for almost everyone with as little changes or variants as possible.
>>65130016>Swords peaked with the SchiavonaFixed that for you, but tsuba are cool.
>>65129480It has to be shitty on purpose so that the war stays a petty scrap over some gravely mountainsides instead of becoming a hot war that fucks the global economy up even more.
>>65135176
>>65129388>UltimateNo such thing. It's all circumstantial with some weapons being good for one thing but not others. At best you can get a good general purpose weapon like a Sword or Halberd but that just means you're beaten by a specialist weapon in their specialty.
>>65136716I doubt using properly made melee weaponry would escalate that conflict anon.
>>65129388gay sex
>>65140554>finish him rightly
>>65136779Yes it would. Because buying legit swords & spears means "BRO THEIR GOVERNMENT CLEARLY WANTS TO KILL OUR BOYS!" Meanwhile prison-shank tier jeetslayers just tells us that "this is just enlisted dudes being vicious, not official policy."
>>65129388the cold steel brooklyn shorty
