Enough with stopping power vs capacity. Cut or thrust?
>>65591493Thrust is infinitely more useful.
Blunt/Thrust!
>>65591493Thrust has better economy of movement.
>>65591493>Cut or thrust?The best swords could effectively do both. If you read "The French Dueling Code" (that most of Europe followed, not just France), you'll see a rule that if a person chose saber, but he had military training and the other person dueling was a civilian, the civilian could veto that choice and insist on a rapier. Even back when it was established that thrust was superior, a sword that could do both offered a great advantage to a sword that could only do one thing well.
>>65591493Why not both?
>>65591493Cut if you're alone, thrust if you're in a formation.
>>65591493Cut & thrust formerly fuck & bust
>>65591493Thrust.
>>65591493Thrustfags only became dominant in the hyper specific late renaissance and enlightenment civilian dueling meta. Most military swords are either balanced or cut-forward. The best sword might lean towards the cut or the thrust, but it's capable of doing both, because you want to have that option. Only throwing out one type of attack makes you predictable, and you can find yourself in positions where one isn't going to work but the other will. Cut-heavy or cut only swords were basically there to give to conscripts and other bulk soldiery, because a cut is a more instinctive movement than a thrust, so people tend to default to it when panicking.
>>65591602Is far right missing handle material?
>>65591519there's no bank to write a check to and no spending limit when your life is being defended
>>65591493Cut for stopping the fight, thrust for making sure they won't fight you again.
>>65591493Cuts generally stop fights better. Although may not be as lethal, also when using swords of the same length, you can deliver a potentially fight ending cut at a range where a thrust may not be fight ending or lethal in the long run, the last 2-4 inches of a blade can deliver a nasty cut, but a 3" thrust probably won't stop the fight.Using same length swords a thrust is also much more susceptible to a cut or thrust in response before they cna recover from their thrust.If you have a substantially longer sword the thrust and just keeping your point between you two is very formidable.
>>65591745>Thrustfags only became dominant in the hyper specific late renaissanceThat's really not true, for numerous reasons. Thrust centric swords were common in numerous different places at different times. The bronze age rapier, the gladius, the acinaces, luristan/ear pommel sword, on and on. It comes and goes out of fashion throughout history constantly; the rapier showed up, became very common in parts of Europe, then largely fell out of favor. Even then the whole time it existed there were still cut centric swords used in the same place at the same time, and swords suitable equally for cutting and thrusting. And worldwide at that time, cutting swords were definitively more popular.
>>65591597Based knower, that's interesting
>>65591493Am I a horseman or no?
Cut managed to outlast thrust before leading to its users charging into machine guns to demonstrate their cutting prowess.
>>65591493Thrusting is better for defense as somebody must close the distance to harm you and just keeping a pointy stick in front of you makes an incredibly easy and effective barrier for that. A cut requires precise timing and thus is more difficult to pull off and must work on the first swing to be effective against aggressive attacker. Thrusts are also very good offensively in formations; like spears or bayonets.Cuts win in chaotic battles when you may face more than one opponent or have to quickly change directions. Thrusting swords dominated duels (1v1), good cutting ability was very valuable in military swords.
>>65591493Limbs = cutTorso = thrustOpen with cuts because it's easier to remain mobile while avoiding over committing and you only need to land one on their dominate arm to gain a huge advantage.
>>65591597rapiers could cut well though
>>65591745longswordists were thrustfags
>>65591597are you not intentionally mistranslating the smallsword as a rapier? because nobody but rare few spaniards were using rapiers in the 19th century.also, in most of Europe duelling was highly illegal at the time.
>>65592688>the gladiusWhich was also used for cutting a good deal of the time, as stated by historical sources of the time, as well as modern studies of battlefield human remains from Roman battle.
>>65592978the sort of cutting they did with gladius wasn't really cutting in a conventional sense though, instead of swinging it they'd just put it against enemy ankles, necks or behind the knees and slice, like with a kitchen knife.
>>65592983Still counts as a cut.
>>65592994there are smallswords that have their "edges" of the tri-blade sharpened to slice the hand that grabs them, which would also be a cut, so by that logic the only thing that absolutely doesn't cut is a completely round spike bayonet.
>>65592983>those who, being always accustomed to fight with Greeks and Illyrians, had only seen wounds made with javelins and arrows, seldom even by lances, came to behold bodies dismembered by the Spanish sword, some with their arms lopped off, with the shoulder or the neck entirely cut through, heads severed from the trunk, and the bowels laid open, with other frightful exhibitions of wounds: they therefore perceived, with horror, against what weapons and what men they were to fight."
>>65592977Dueling being heavily restricted or outright illegal didn't necessarily stop people from doing it back in those days.
>>65593063being charged for murder over duelling would do it. the whole idea of duelling as a regular occurence stems from the 16th century when it was somewhat legal and widespread being projected onto the 19th century.
>>65593097>being charged for murder and hanged*
>>65593097>>65593099Except it wasn't really enforced until the 19th century and even remained legal across various European countries until then.
>>65591497This, it's why spears and bows ruled the battlefield for millennia.
>>65593107>Except it wasn't really enforcedyes it fucking was fuckwit>and even remained legal across various European countriesfrance is about the only exception
>>65593110Oh, is that why the fucking POPE had to interven in fucking 1891 to enforce laws against dueiling in Germany and Austro-Hungary?Fucking retard.
>>65593112>yeah bro they just ignored murders on the street, like nothing happened bro, trust me!why are you such a pathetic lying piece of shit? your crap about rapiers is also a disgusting intentional twisted sophistry.
>>65593117Duelling was only made illegal in 1851 in Prussia, as an example, but no one gave a fuck hence in 1891; https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_12091891_pastoralis-officii.html>To the Archbishops and Bishops of the German Empire and Austria-Hungary.>Mindful of your pastoral duty and moved by your love of neighbor, you wrote to me last year concerning the frequent practice among your people of a private, individual contest called dueling. You indicate, not without grief, that even Catholics customarily engage in this type of combat. At the same time your request that We, too, attempt to dissuade men from this manner of error. It is indeed a deadly error and not restricted to your country, but has spread so far that practically no people can be found free from the contagion of the evil.Now go be a retard somewhere else.
>>65593121>b-but the pope saidwho gives a shit? you've shown yourself to pull falsehoods out of your ass and make shit up, why do you keep deflecting to some rare nothingburger shit from the 19th century? they almost entirely switched to pistols outside of fencing schools for that to boot.kill yourself you absolute scumbag.
>>65593137That's fine, you can still live a worthwile life despite the fact you're retard.
>>65593139yeah, and you cannot. i bet even your parents don't want to see you because you're such a vile and pathetic compuslive liar.
>>65591493>cut Oy vey!
>>65592978So were rapiers.
>>65591493The thrust is for killing. Cutting is for working through your opponent's guard.
>>65592973You could do decent flick cuts with them, not deep draw cuts.>>65592977>are you not intentionally mistranslating the smallsword as a rapier?I'm definitely not.>because nobody but rare few spaniards were using rapiers in the 19th century.The book was written in the 1800s but coves the rules that existed from the1600s tothe 1800s.>also, in most of Europe duelling was highly illegal at the time.They did it anyway. The last duel to happen in Poland was in the 1930s, almost a century after being outlawed. Your temper tantrum with the other guy won't deny reality. The book even covers some famous duels to happen during the era, go give it a read.>>65593137>they almost entirely switched to pistols outside of fencing schools for that to boot.What a coincidence, the book covers Epee, Saber, and pistol duels. It's almost as if you don't know anything about the book whose mere mention caused you to have a temper tantrum.
>>65592977>also, in most of Europe dueling was highly illegal at the timeYou misunderstand the pre-modern times. Firstly, dueling was only a thing among nobility (commoners couldn't duel; they could brawl). And all nobles considered themselves free men - or sovereigns. The idea of forbidding two free men engaging in a duel between themselves would be so ridiculous for them that it took the collapse of the whole socio-economic system (with the concept of nobility itself) for it to get acknowledged.Btw, the common sentiment for equality went in the wrong direction. One possibility was to acknowledge that all people are as free as the nobility used to be. The other was to strip the nobility of its rights and equalize them with peasants - under the rule of a new, bureaucratic aristocracy. Life would be too easy is sanity was consistently winning.
>>65593606>The book was written in the 1800s but coves the rules that existed from the1600s tothe 1800s.so your proof is quite improbable and mistranslated nomenclature from a book that's from a completely wrong time period bringing up a ridiculous thing that had no chance of happening as your only example.damn right your book is worth only wiping asses with, just like your face and your tongue are.
>>65593606>the book covers Epee, Sabergood job admitting you lied about the smallswords by pretending it was about rapiers btw.
>>65593683>so your proof is quite improbable and mistranslated nomenclature from a book that's from a completely wrong time period bringing up a ridiculous thing that had no chance of happening as your only example.Look at you coping and seething this hard. The French Dueling Code (from France), Code Duello (Irish dueling code), and Code of Honor (US dueling code) are valid sources that build upon each other. The fact that you think there were no duels in the 1800s shows how ignorant you are. There were men in WW1 and WW2 that had facial dueling scars, you buffoon.>>65593687>good job admitting you lied about the smallswords by pretending it was about rapiers btw.You actually doubled down on your ignorance. You might actually be illiterate.
>>65591493Unless you're only using it for duelling and/or want it to be very, very light (thrust), or use it as light cavalry (cut) a balanced sword is just all around best.The real question is, straight or (slightly) curved? True double edge or partial false edge? I don't have a strong opinion on that. It's a matter of preference and fighting style I guess.
>>65591493Thrusts pros>more reach>more lethal>better against armor>faster/less telegraphicThrust cons>worse for close quarters>worse for multiple opponentsCuts pros>more disabling>better on horseback>better for multiple opponents>drawcuts can be done in close quartersCuts cons>-less reach/speed>-less lethal
>>65593876>There were men in WW1 and WW2 that had facial dueling scarsmensur isn't duelling, as if you couldn't be lying through your teeth even more than you already did.>You actually doubled down on your ignorance.you actually doubled down on your pathetic attempt at lying.
>>65593876>The fact that you think there were no duels in the 1800sstrawman, they existed but they were completely irrelevant minority and among the few that happened almost all were with pistols, not swords
>>65595078>as if you couldn't be lying through your teeth even more than you already did.You sure do love to project yourself onto others. LOL>>65595078>you actually doubled down on your pathetic attempt at lying.Except I didn't; the 19th-century epee was designed from the "rapier de combat," very different from a smallsword design, which was still capable of cutting, while the duelling epee swords often had no sharp edge at all; you had to thrust.>>65595080>strawman, they existed but they were completely irrelevant minorityThis is you moving the goalpost.>and among the few that happened almost all were with pistols, not swordsThis is you lying. Read a book: during the time there were duels with swords and duels with pistols, back then the only requirement was that the two gentlemen dueling had to agree on what weapon to use and the terms (first blood, second blood, no quarters, etc.).
What's the best brand for swords? I want to someday get a 1796 heavy cavalry. You know why.
>>65592688Dominant =/= common or viable. You also cut out the part where I specified "civilian dueling meta". Rapiers carried in war were (commonly) far bulkier than their civilian counterparts, basically looking like roided up versions of their sidesword forebearers.
>>65594109Personally, I'd go for slightly curved with a false edge. You don't lose too much thrusting power and gain the ability to attack from some very tricky angles.
>>65596308Depends on the sword. If you develop better taste, the 1796 light cavalry sword from LK Chen is the best on the market.Although realistically for that sword you can just buy an original. They exist and are not impossibly rare or expensive. It will still cost a bit, but you know it's the real deal.
>>65592983Polybius, Histories>Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man—because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,—it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect.>With the shield they also carry a sword hanging down by their right thigh, which is called a Spanish sword. It has an excellent point, and can deal a formidable blow with either edge, because its blade is stout and unbending.
>>65592894someone needs to make a movie or show about a fictionalized da dao unit fighting a japanese katana unit in WWII. you could do some cool stuff with that
>>65596066>You sure do love to projectnot as much as you like to make shit up and cover your ass about it.>the 19th-century epee was designed from the "rapier de combat," very different from a smallsword designcomplete and utter bullshit, no frenchman carried or even handled a rapier in the 19th century. it was 100% a smallsword.>smallsword design, which was still capable of cuttingjust stop talking and stop breathing already.>had to agreeand they agreed on pistols, not rapiers.you keep kvetching about your shitass book that you need to lie and twist about to even bring up, is it because you're so full of shit and delusions that you have to do this, or are you just mentally deficient and cannot comprehend what is being said to you?
>>65591493but a sabre is a thrusting weaponmost are not nearly as dramatically curved as that, since that one is more of a cavalry sabre, where the amount of speed you get from a horse makes it not matter so much that the tip is so wide
killing with the tip lacks artistry
>>65598384>just stop talking and stop breathing already.Why? Because it hurts your delicate feelings?>and they agreed on pistols, not rapiers.Not always, you crybaby. There are documented cases of sword duels during the era.
>>65591493Þrust, in swords, is mostly only good in a duel.In an actual defensive situation or in warfare it's not nearly as good for a sword (excluding fully-armored fighting) as a þrust won't actually stop your opponent, who's high on adrenaline. Þey're far more likely to get a counter blow on you long before any shock sets in in such a case, save for if you just have an obscene amount of reach advantage over þem or you hit þeir spine or þroat. Cuts have actual stopping power. It's a bar of sharp steel hitting you. A þrust isn't imparting much energy into you at all unless your armor stops it. A þrusting sword is more likely to kill in one hit, but is far worse for defending wiþ. A cutting sword will usually take several hits to kill (usually via bleeding out) but is far better for defending.Get you a bitch who can do boþ, but it also depends on how you like to fight.
>>65593109No, spears were þe rulers of þe battlefield because of how easy & intuitive þey are for training up & equipping large numbers of men.Bows also didn't rule þe battlefield. Þat was mostly just þe English & Mongols, but for vastly different reasons.
>>65591497For absolutely ensuring a kill? Sure.For taking someone out of the fight in the moment? Cuts are much better.
>What if we made fuller right until the top
Maybe the only affordable high quality modern sabre replica on the market, and it's a fucking pipeback. FML
>>65600812Actually, in german parlance this is not a sabre, but an epee (degen) since it is not curved. In english it would just be a sword.
>>65598702>>65598705
I’ve been fencing HEMA longsword for 3 years now, I’m upper B Tier, occasionally I can hag blow for blow with an A Tier, so I’m getting close to moving up. My most commonly landed attack is a cut to the hands/arms, particularly to the right wrist. The next most commonly landed successful attack is a cut to the top of the head, a fast Scheitelhau or Zwerkhau (however that’s spelled) is something that will occasionally punch way above its weight. The next most common attack is a thrust to an upper opening, like stab to mask, throat, or shoulder level. Yes a thrust generally more lethal, but it’s harder to do well with out committing yourself more to counterattack or an afterblow. It’s easier to “oh shit” parry while pulling guard from most cuts than it is from a failed thrust. But it does depend a lot on the sword, saber has a lot more cuts than thrust, but thrusts are still pretty important. Same as Rapier is mostly thrust oriented but still has valid cuts. Messer and other short sword styles has a good mix of both. I don’t do Japanese fencing, but I’m pretty sure it’s pretty slash heavy
>>65597164The chinks kind of did that already. It looked like mellow-dramatic shit as you would expect. I don't remember the name of the film but it used to be on YouTube but now whenever I search for it, all I get is AI slop documentaries.
>>65591493Thrust with sufficient wound channel to cause massive bleeding or muscle group severing, otherwise, cut.Thrust with narrow wound channel is (historically) more likely to be fatal (less so in modern contexts with the surgical development of wound drainage), but is significantly less likely to be immediately fatal, leading to opponents being mortally wounded but still capable of making a final attack to take you down too. Thrust is also easier to control, and as someone else said, better economy of movement. Cut is less likely to kill, but more likely to cause disabling wounds which prevents the opponent from also harming you. Which should always be the priority. Thrust with broad wound channel is the correct compromise.
>>65601233>I’ve been fencing HEMA longsword for 3 years nowInteresting thing I've heard from some instructors. When two opponents have long blades, successful leg blows are less common than when blades are short (forcing the opponents to fight while closer together).
>>65601676Depends on how short we are talking. When I’m doing dagger or messer (German short sword), you really only go for leg as a taunt. Mostly because by the time you are that close you are better off setting up for a grapple to get into a position for a throw.The thing is that you have more range when your arm is extended straight off the shoulder, if you are aiming low you have less range. So you will be in range with your sword low, your head is going to be exposed. You can increase your range while attacking low by changing level, basically squatting or landing a lunge on one knee, this will keep your arms higher so you have less distance to travel for the cover parry which you know will be coming from above.With longsword the most common leg attack is called a Geisling, which is an Italian technique, where you let go of the sword with the forward hand and swing at their forward leg holding your sword by the pommel with your off hand. This lets you cheat your range by a good 10” or so. It’s very effective against newer fencers but more experienced fencers will punish you for it if you don’t catch them off guard. A good fencer will slip their forward leg back to void the strike then bolt in to hit you when you are trying to regain control of your sword after overswinging with one hand. If they don’t just hard parry (Krump) it out of your hand. Also many tournaments don’t reward many points/priority to leg cuts, and some outright don’t reward points for one handed actions out side of a grapple.In rapier fencing, touching your opponents toe is a really good way to show off, because it’s very hard to do with out being stabbed in the face as you do itBy far the most leg cuts come from Sword&Buckler fencing. Pretty much the most common play is to get them to attack towards your head, you parry it high with your buckler while squatting and snipping at their knee.
>>65591493If your opponent isn't totally committed, cuts will convince them to run, but thrusts will end the fight.>t. London Streets Youth Duellist Society enjoyer
>>65602087Interesting. I'd been led to believe that shorter swords (Roman spathas, Viking Era swords, etc.) would force opponents to fight close enough to easily hit the thigh and/or knee, while with longer swords (longsword, estoc, etc.) opponents were forced to be far enough to make that attack rarer. It does make sense that other factors like shields were more significant factors, as all the people using shorter swords (Romans, Vikings, Celtic warriors, etc.) were all carrying shields.
>>65591493COOL CAVALRY SWORD ANON WHY ARE YOU DUELING WITH IT
>>65602087>>65602087If weapon is long enough to comfortably target legs it becomes often target. Among mass participated fencing such is naginata fencing, leg attacks are stapple there Another is sword and shield fensing, such slav HEMA. Here leg is main target too. Reason is shield is very good at defending, so upper level only attacked can be easily blocked, so stapple tactic is combining attack level that can't be parried with single shield position, such as feint to head followed by strike to the leg, or two parts combo with head strike bouncing of shield using that bounce to transfer sword onto other side hit tovyr leg. At the same time your own shield can cover you hear so disadvantage of their geometry reach expossing head doesn't hurt you much.Interesting note in Slav HEMA for a long time it was prohibited to target knee and below because of the safety (leg armor was insufficient there). But recent progress of armor making and fencers getting more money for hobbies changed protection, now fencers can afford plate leg protection that is making knee hit safe. It lead to changes in rules allowing such strikes and its turn massively changed fencing. If before basic stance was straight back with legs firmly placed on the ground and sword and shield close to he body. But after rules change it was quickly exposed that stance doesn't provide reliable protection against squatting leg snipe, so stance was changed to close to pic. Figures from medieval fensing manuals, with heavy leba forward shield forward and butt sticking out. Suddenly it all makes sense now, only when legs are so behind shield fighter gets enough space to parry leg strike. At the same time legs strieks reduced, because they aren't not exposed, and main target became head because relatively it less protected now, stance has less space and stability to protect head. Danger of leg strikes that aren't used much force fighters to stick their head into danger.
>>65602686This is what top guru of Russian HEMA is teaching now (guy was in HEMA wining tournaments since 90s, true og unc)https://youtube.com/watch?v=nfaOPyacQmsAnd here is old fight https://youtube.com/watch?v=uZR_kUFVIYU
