How some people think swords are the best weapon in x apocalypse

MadassAlex · 2011-11-17 08:00:50

Maces aren't too maintenance intensive. You'd probably want a little, but they're very robust by nature, being developed for transferring force through heavy armours. On the other hand, a sword with a well-designed pommel can do that, too, albeit to a lesser degree, and heavy armours aren't going to be an issue in an apocalypse situation. Swords are faster and more versatile, too, having a slim profile for moving through the air and having a variety of wounding techniques.

Remember, hitting isn't all you do with some melee weapons, but it's all a mace is really capable of. A sword, on the other hand, has access to lethal thrusts as well as draw cuts. The wonderful thing about a draw cut is that it can cause heavy damage after your weapon is close to your adversary, so you can transition into one if you're parried. A mace can't do that; once you've spent your force, you have to wind up for another strike.

The thrust is another method of dealing damage after a strike is committed, or when weapons are bound. Personally, I find myself using them as "finishers" during sparring, because they're very fast and brilliant at taking advantage of small, subtle mistakes on your adversary's part. The only disadvantage of a thrust is the commitment they represent. If you mess it up, you have to pull back, wasting precious time when a strike or draw cut can transition into another technique.

A sword is also longer than a mace, and most are longer than machetes or any other sort of modern tool likely to be used as a weapon. This immediately puts an adversary on the back foot, as they're forced to react while you can dictate the flow of the battle. Liechtenauer's method advocates making the first strike as often as possible and using further strikes to keep initiative as you wear down your adversary. If they're defending, they can't attack, so having a significantly longer weapon is an excellent advantage under those teachings.

Swords are at their peak when armour isn't a concern, even though there are plenty of techniques dedicated to defeating even plate armour. Between their speed, lethality and versatility, one can't ask for a better close combat weapon within that context. Only polearms rivalled swords as close combat weapons in terms of versatility, but they're unnecessarily large and difficult to travel with in an apocalyptic scenario.

Keep in mind that, as "normal" as swords are to us, they're comparatively complex and exotic fighting tools. The design is simple, but brilliant. as a long blade combines distance with the capacity to cut, draw cut and thrust. Axes hack better and deeper and spears thrust better, but nothing can rival the brutal draw cut of a sword. Uniquely, draw cuts from a sword continue cutting almost along the entire length of a weapon, so the impact portion of the blade opens up a wound while the rest of it follows, cutting deeper into already wounded flesh. Furthermore, a double-edged sword can wind (twist, more or less) as one draw cuts, mangling flesh further.

Maces are easier to maintain, less harmful to a beginner and great against armour. The last part doesn't apply, the second is context-dependant and the first is a good point. Even the second point isn't that strong an argument, though, because chances are that a beginner to weapons combat isn't going to have a properly-constructed medieval mace or functional replica.

In essence, a sword has more techniques available to it than any other close combat weapon, especially something like a European longsword.

Malkavian · 2011-11-17 08:09:07

One of the things here is, as you've said, swords are actually relatively complex weapons.

In the hands of a layman it's a sharp stick.

MadassAlex · 2011-11-17 08:12:38

Worse, since it's a sharp stick that can easily cut the user if they're not practiced. If I was in an apocalyptic scenario and I had to train people to defend themselves quickly, I'd do what I could to acquire axes (fire axes would do), forge spears (forge a knife blade, put it on wood, simple, quick and easy) and collect knives. That said, if you know what you're doing and there are no forms of armour that reduce the versatility of a sword, nothing compares.

Malkavian · 2011-11-17 08:16:18

It's why I'd use an chopping axe or a machete, and not just because they're tools I have here to ~~kill the people who tried to drown me at Camp Crystal Lake~~ do gardening work around the house. They're simple, lightweight, and multipurpose.

The_Edge · 2011-11-17 08:22:47

Crowbars, survival knives, chopping axe, I have thought about before, but I never thought of a machete before so thanks! My wife would pack pots, pans, and other cooking tools as well as spices.

MadassAlex · 2011-11-17 08:43:15

Yeah, let's not leave knives out. You'll want one for general use, plus backup in a fight. In the medieval combat manuals, daggers are seldom fought with drawn and at the ready (although there are techniques that cover that). Instead, dagger combat is very close to unarmed combat, except that grapples include very lethal and very easy finishers. And that's what I suggest you keep a knife ready for, since any kind of close combat weapons fight risks getting really close in. A sword belt seldom held just a sword, but often a dagger on the opposite hip. They're a subtle, oft-ignored part of the combat system, but they really do complete truly immediate-range combat.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

How some people think swords are the best weapon in x apocalypse

Comments