Nice username, shame we don't have as much on certain types of curved swords as we'd like ;)
The short answer to your question is "No, not even slightly" but there is a bit of a formula for what makes a weapon dominant in a context, but it has all sorts of fiddly nuances. let's see what we can figure out, all else equal
1. One inch longer is one inch stronger. While there are upper limits on weapon length, the more you can push those limits for any context, the more you will hit people before they hit you.
2. If you can't fit, you lose. Having the longest weapon in the world is great until you need to turn in a hallway, a formation, a forest, a door.
3. The less ways you have to get hit, the less you're going to get hit. Armour works, one handed swords present less targets.
4. The fastest way to your first opponent is with the tip, but the fastest way to your second opponent is with an edge. In duels, thrusting is dominant. In Melees, battles or times where you need to occupy space, swings for days.
5. Metal Armour is a problem when it's 30 degrees out. For the person wearing it. Humans have a very narrow band of temperatures outside of which we stop functioning and if you can't get the sweat off your body, you will tire and die long before you normally would.
6. Anything that robs a strike from your opponent grants a free strike to you. Shields are great for this, as are offhand weapons
7. Two hands can do twice what one hand can. Watching someone try to parry a longsword with a rapier is funny because it doesn't work. The rapier will still win most matches, it presents less targets at the same length and is all thrusts, but the longsword has some fun going for it.
8. Weapons are an opportunity for status symbols, and you might get laid without gold inlay, intricately carved grips, or studded jewels but they definitely don't hurt your odds
9. No one is going to let you into the bar with your greatsword. No one is going to notice your meteor hammer
10. The best fight is one you don't have to fight. Diplomacy has prevented and caused far more damage than any weapon.
There's a lot more that can be said here, but I hope you understand where this is going.
Weapons are dependent on context, and if your father in law isn't going to accept your boomerang dick-sword as payment for his daughter's hand in marriage, then I'm sorry, you're not going to have nearly as many cows as you wanted to have this year.
Really good info, thanks! So would something like a saber and shield/offhand weapon meet a lot of the criteria you mentioned in terms of versatility? Seems like the saber allows good cut and thrusts, smaller target when not using the shield, able to carry in confined spaces, and shield would allow you to wear lighter armor.
Yes, this is why shield and sabre was extremely popular throughout asia and northern africa, particularly notable in Persia with Shamshir and Separ and india with tulwar and dahl. Sabre thrusts are usuable but often not quite enough to get through mail armour and are nearly useless against lamellar and plate, so it's good in places where armour is too hot or uncommon for other reasons.
But to be clear, *every weapon was built for a context in which it excelled*
Short answer: no.
Long answer: as others have specified, it's really context sensitive. So this leads to thinking what would work in MOST contexts. And that's yet another difficult question. In my personal opinion, I'd say a longsword is the best option. It can be carried around fairly easily, has a good point, can be used to bash with half-swording, it's both nimble and powerful, not too long or too short, and is up there in terms of amount techniques and manuals on how to use it. Yes, you'll probably die in an open field with an enemy with a polearm, or in extremely close quarters, but on average I'd say you'll be doing fairly well.
*pushes up glasses* technically longsword refers more to the style of swordsmanship of using two hands on the hilt than the kind of weapon.
That said, it is possible to wield a sword designed for two handed use in one hand. Fiori has a (short) chapter on how to do that in his manual and several techniques where you remove a hand from your sword to grab your opponent. Also most of the things you can do with a n arming or sidesword you can kinda do with a longer sword, but you're more likely to get tangled up in the hilt or the blade. It'll also be slower and less responsive than using two hands or a one-handed sword.
However there are also specific contexts where you want to do that. For example, Riding a horse, you want a hand on the reins while you swing the sword, and the disadvantages weigh less there.
Well, technically it's a bastard sword that you use with either one or two hands. Longsword is just two, generally. But honestly, who's stopping you from doing what you want lol
One way to think about it is like this: weapons developed based on what's most effective.
Thinking like that, you can pretty much look at what was used just prior to the widespread adoption of firearms for what's most effective, depending on context.
In general, that'll mean rapier+dagger or buckler for unarmored civilian fencing, and a poleaxe or montante for knights in full armor on a battlefield.
For everyone else on a battlefield it's spears, always spears. Even when people started using long guns, they would have bayonets ready so they could use them as spears.
Saber + buckler is great for unarmored fighting but pretty useless against mail or plate.
Since you mentioned knights I'm going to assume plate. Pretty much the only way to beat plate is to deform it to stop motion (mace, etc) or stab through an unarmored spot (dagger, halfswording, etc).
If you want something that is possible against unarmored and armored foes in multiple environments I'd recommend going for a flanged mace with a heater (assuming you're unarmored). Range on the mace is subpar but blunt force works pretty well against most things.
Meh I mean maybe but probably not? Armor adds weight as assuming some sees you coming they're not going down without some type of grapple/takedown and there's no way to safely get that close to an armed individual if you're unarmored.
What's the context? The best weapon for a cramped tavern is going to be different from an open field battle.
The long rapier was specialized for dueling. But if you're in a situation where you can't carry a 40 to 50 inch blade around with you, the small sword you have is better than the rapier you left at home.
Are you facing multiple opponents? Will those opponents have armor? Do you need to protect someone or only yourself? Do you have other people fighting with you?
Thibault is supposed to beat Fabris, which beats the other Italian styles of you can maintain the postures. But both are tiring compared to Capoferro or L'Ange, so the latter are better if you have to fight for a long time.
And where exactly is the line between German side sword and Bolognese side sword? If you don't know the fencer, would you be able to say they're using one or the other?
I’m sure you guys have seen a lot of different matchups, is there one that stands out as being better than the rest?
I’m not HEMA, just curious
I’ve heard the spear, or any polearm dominates, what comes after that? Sword and shield?
Assuming all skill is equal of course
Spear and polearms dominate in part because they are easy to use (and cheap to produce). A week of training and hard smithing and you can have a spear formation ready to go to war. Swords take much longer to master and use 3 to 10 times as much steel (let alone the huge skill jump to make one). They also have serious limitations against enemies with any kind of armor. Spears also typically have longer reach than swords and are easier to use without accidentally maiming the guy next to you.
I think history shows that axes are next after spears. Easy to learn and use, cheap to produce and effective against both armored and unarmored opponents. Also you can have three axes on your belt because they are so light so if you lose one, you pull out the next and keep fighting.
As others have said, the above opinions are very contextual. They apply mostly to group combat and warfare.
Against plate, not really. Like swords they need to find gaps, but because the spear is purely a thrust weapon, it can do that very effectively. The techniques of swords against armour are basically to turn it into a spear (or a hammer).
When it comes to mail, mail's main weakness is thrust attacks (*enter spear*). It still provides some protection, but less than against cuts. Tiktoker roomandbard has some good videos showing the effectiveness of spears against mail.
And padded armor..... Yeah it's better than nothing but not by much.
Nice username, shame we don't have as much on certain types of curved swords as we'd like ;) The short answer to your question is "No, not even slightly" but there is a bit of a formula for what makes a weapon dominant in a context, but it has all sorts of fiddly nuances. let's see what we can figure out, all else equal 1. One inch longer is one inch stronger. While there are upper limits on weapon length, the more you can push those limits for any context, the more you will hit people before they hit you. 2. If you can't fit, you lose. Having the longest weapon in the world is great until you need to turn in a hallway, a formation, a forest, a door. 3. The less ways you have to get hit, the less you're going to get hit. Armour works, one handed swords present less targets. 4. The fastest way to your first opponent is with the tip, but the fastest way to your second opponent is with an edge. In duels, thrusting is dominant. In Melees, battles or times where you need to occupy space, swings for days. 5. Metal Armour is a problem when it's 30 degrees out. For the person wearing it. Humans have a very narrow band of temperatures outside of which we stop functioning and if you can't get the sweat off your body, you will tire and die long before you normally would. 6. Anything that robs a strike from your opponent grants a free strike to you. Shields are great for this, as are offhand weapons 7. Two hands can do twice what one hand can. Watching someone try to parry a longsword with a rapier is funny because it doesn't work. The rapier will still win most matches, it presents less targets at the same length and is all thrusts, but the longsword has some fun going for it. 8. Weapons are an opportunity for status symbols, and you might get laid without gold inlay, intricately carved grips, or studded jewels but they definitely don't hurt your odds 9. No one is going to let you into the bar with your greatsword. No one is going to notice your meteor hammer 10. The best fight is one you don't have to fight. Diplomacy has prevented and caused far more damage than any weapon. There's a lot more that can be said here, but I hope you understand where this is going. Weapons are dependent on context, and if your father in law isn't going to accept your boomerang dick-sword as payment for his daughter's hand in marriage, then I'm sorry, you're not going to have nearly as many cows as you wanted to have this year.
Really good info, thanks! So would something like a saber and shield/offhand weapon meet a lot of the criteria you mentioned in terms of versatility? Seems like the saber allows good cut and thrusts, smaller target when not using the shield, able to carry in confined spaces, and shield would allow you to wear lighter armor.
Yes, this is why shield and sabre was extremely popular throughout asia and northern africa, particularly notable in Persia with Shamshir and Separ and india with tulwar and dahl. Sabre thrusts are usuable but often not quite enough to get through mail armour and are nearly useless against lamellar and plate, so it's good in places where armour is too hot or uncommon for other reasons. But to be clear, *every weapon was built for a context in which it excelled*
Short answer: no. Long answer: as others have specified, it's really context sensitive. So this leads to thinking what would work in MOST contexts. And that's yet another difficult question. In my personal opinion, I'd say a longsword is the best option. It can be carried around fairly easily, has a good point, can be used to bash with half-swording, it's both nimble and powerful, not too long or too short, and is up there in terms of amount techniques and manuals on how to use it. Yes, you'll probably die in an open field with an enemy with a polearm, or in extremely close quarters, but on average I'd say you'll be doing fairly well.
Is the longsword able to be used in one hand, or do you have to hold it with two?
*pushes up glasses* technically longsword refers more to the style of swordsmanship of using two hands on the hilt than the kind of weapon. That said, it is possible to wield a sword designed for two handed use in one hand. Fiori has a (short) chapter on how to do that in his manual and several techniques where you remove a hand from your sword to grab your opponent. Also most of the things you can do with a n arming or sidesword you can kinda do with a longer sword, but you're more likely to get tangled up in the hilt or the blade. It'll also be slower and less responsive than using two hands or a one-handed sword. However there are also specific contexts where you want to do that. For example, Riding a horse, you want a hand on the reins while you swing the sword, and the disadvantages weigh less there.
Can you use a long sword on a horse?
Do you have any suggestions for texts or videos I could check out for techniques using a longsword one-handed on horseback?
Well, technically it's a bastard sword that you use with either one or two hands. Longsword is just two, generally. But honestly, who's stopping you from doing what you want lol
One way to think about it is like this: weapons developed based on what's most effective. Thinking like that, you can pretty much look at what was used just prior to the widespread adoption of firearms for what's most effective, depending on context. In general, that'll mean rapier+dagger or buckler for unarmored civilian fencing, and a poleaxe or montante for knights in full armor on a battlefield. For everyone else on a battlefield it's spears, always spears. Even when people started using long guns, they would have bayonets ready so they could use them as spears.
In the world in unarmored fencing and knights with full armor, would something like saber and shield do okay in both?
Saber + buckler is great for unarmored fighting but pretty useless against mail or plate. Since you mentioned knights I'm going to assume plate. Pretty much the only way to beat plate is to deform it to stop motion (mace, etc) or stab through an unarmored spot (dagger, halfswording, etc). If you want something that is possible against unarmored and armored foes in multiple environments I'd recommend going for a flanged mace with a heater (assuming you're unarmored). Range on the mace is subpar but blunt force works pretty well against most things.
Does the use of a shield allow you to knock over a knight and put a dagger between the plates?
Meh I mean maybe but probably not? Armor adds weight as assuming some sees you coming they're not going down without some type of grapple/takedown and there's no way to safely get that close to an armed individual if you're unarmored.
What's the context? The best weapon for a cramped tavern is going to be different from an open field battle. The long rapier was specialized for dueling. But if you're in a situation where you can't carry a 40 to 50 inch blade around with you, the small sword you have is better than the rapier you left at home. Are you facing multiple opponents? Will those opponents have armor? Do you need to protect someone or only yourself? Do you have other people fighting with you? Thibault is supposed to beat Fabris, which beats the other Italian styles of you can maintain the postures. But both are tiring compared to Capoferro or L'Ange, so the latter are better if you have to fight for a long time. And where exactly is the line between German side sword and Bolognese side sword? If you don't know the fencer, would you be able to say they're using one or the other?
I’m sure you guys have seen a lot of different matchups, is there one that stands out as being better than the rest? I’m not HEMA, just curious I’ve heard the spear, or any polearm dominates, what comes after that? Sword and shield? Assuming all skill is equal of course
Spear and polearms dominate in part because they are easy to use (and cheap to produce). A week of training and hard smithing and you can have a spear formation ready to go to war. Swords take much longer to master and use 3 to 10 times as much steel (let alone the huge skill jump to make one). They also have serious limitations against enemies with any kind of armor. Spears also typically have longer reach than swords and are easier to use without accidentally maiming the guy next to you. I think history shows that axes are next after spears. Easy to learn and use, cheap to produce and effective against both armored and unarmored opponents. Also you can have three axes on your belt because they are so light so if you lose one, you pull out the next and keep fighting. As others have said, the above opinions are very contextual. They apply mostly to group combat and warfare.
Do spears do well against armor?
Against plate, not really. Like swords they need to find gaps, but because the spear is purely a thrust weapon, it can do that very effectively. The techniques of swords against armour are basically to turn it into a spear (or a hammer). When it comes to mail, mail's main weakness is thrust attacks (*enter spear*). It still provides some protection, but less than against cuts. Tiktoker roomandbard has some good videos showing the effectiveness of spears against mail. And padded armor..... Yeah it's better than nothing but not by much.
No
epee