03-16-2016, 12:04 AM
(03-15-2016, 11:09 PM)Umbra Wrote:(03-15-2016, 08:35 PM)SilverOtter Wrote: Everyone likes to romanticize swords, but they were very impractical. They're short range, take way more metal to make, and need training to even reasonably use, let alone to full efficiency. Most swords were shortsword sidearms anyways, and those who focused on using them exclusively were elite men who needed to show off how rich and powerful they were, which is how they got romanticized in the first place.
Compare polearms, which are long range, only need a tip of metal, and are close enough to pitchforks, shovels, and other long-handled equipment that you can easily arm farmers will minimal training, with most advanced tactics involving then being very easy to understand.
Yeah, pretty much. Swordsmanship is neat and all, but there's many weapons that outclass it.
All of which have more range.
What also is the simplest weapon in existence that will never be completely outdated? Hammers, bludgeons, clubs. The cheapest anti armor. We now have "Squash-head" rounds for tanks, which are basically shooting a large hammer at them in how they work.
A wooden mallet is more effective against armor than a sword. Swords are useless (comparatively) the moment you face armor. Look up "half swording". Using both hands to turn your useless sword into a really short spear/dagger. To get through armor.
Spears and halberds are a good choice for ornamental weapons. Because when it comes down to it, They will work better than any firearm would at close ranges. If nothing else, you can actually grip the head of some halberds and swing the shaft instead for a much quicker hit. Plus. Pole-arms extend the "35 foot" rule to 45 feet. If they are within 45 feet. They can gut you before you are likely to even fire at them. Bullets aren't as dangerous as knives and other melee weapons/tools, and it takes longer for someone to go down to bullets.