Caliber wars with swords...

[TheProf]

It's interesting to note the progression of bladed weapons. First we had the broadsword..then the saber...then the foil. Big blades that created big surface wounds...being replaced by weapon that emphasized "precision strikes..and deep penetration.

In the firearm world, we have the "big" .45 caliber being eclipsed (in terms of popularity) by the small 9mm. The emphasis today is on "shot placement" and "penetration".

1. Does anyone else see this interesting correlation?

2. And I kinda wonder about the "caliber wars" of the past (in terms of bladed weapons).

Any thoughts... (ok... i too much free time...)

(This is not meant to turn into a caliber war...but merely to muse about the discussions that warriors of the past had with their bladed weapons... and to notice if there is a correlation with today's caliber discussion with regards to handguns.)

 

[gbran]

Yeah, there is a correlation of sorts. I would also note that longer blades could engage an opponent at much shorter distance than a dagger.

 

[Nom de Forum]

It's interesting to note the progression of bladed weapons. First we had the broadsword..then the saber...then the foil. Big blades that created big surface wounds...being replaced by weapon that emphasized "precision strikes..and deep penetration.

If you do a little research on the history of swords you will discover your analysis of "the progression of bladed weapons" is wildly inaccurate. This sub-forum is not the place for discussion of swords but if you desire an explanation of the evolution of bladed weapons THR does have an appropriate sub-forum. By the way a Foil is sports equipment not a weapon and some of the very first swords were designed for "precision strikes (thrusting) and deep penetration".

 

[Jim K]

Not really because while both guns and swords changed over time, the reasons were different.

Sword and armor both changed in response to improvements in the other. Technical advances allowed plate armor to be made stronger than chain mail or boiled leather, yet remain light enough to wear. Swords were then made heavier in order to penetrate the armor, and it was off to the arms race.

The major change to firearms, on the other hand, was the development of smokeless powder, which allowed a small bullet to move faster and have lethality equal to or better than the slower and heavier bullets necessary with black powder.

Jim

 

[9mmepiphany]

If you do a little research on the history of swords you will discover your analysis of "the progression of bladed weapons" is wildly inaccurate.

The above is correct.

The size of combat blades changed in response to developments in armor.

The evolution of handgun calibers is a study in efficiency of bullets

 

[rcmodel]

Still rather get shot with a .38/9mm then a .69 cal flintlock, or a .45 Colt!!

rc

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Still rather get shot with a .38/9mm then a .69 cal flintlock, or a .45 Colt!!

rc

I'd rather getting poked with a foil.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Yeah sorry. I'm with the others here. Whether it be 9mm or 45, the point is still to poke holes in a target, not create surface slashes.

A better analogy would be to take your sword premise and apply it to the development of the 357 magnum, as that was specifically designed to penetrate hard targets, and more closely mirrors the evolution of bladed weapons in response to the evolution of armor. But even that's a stretch.

I also reject the premis that 9mm is more popular because of shot placement being emphasized more . Shot placement has always been extremely important.

There are plenty of us out there who feel a bigger hole is better than a smaller hole. 9mm is a rival because of ammo capacity, economics, and some folks feel more smaller holes are just as good as fewer large holes. I tend to agree with the notion in premise.

 

[Nom de Forum]

The size of combat blades changed in response to developments in armor.

It is true that armor development influenced blade design but the size of combat blades was more influenced by the development of metallurgy and tactical use than developments in armor. Armor development primarily influenced the type of blade used not the size of the blade. Armor is not defeated by the size of the blade but by the appropriate type of blade and how it is used. Ultimately european plate armor became virtually impervious to attack by swords and the preferred single handed melee weapon became axe, mace, or war hammer.

 

[GRIZ22]

Prof, you really are far from accurate in your original post.

Development of firearms has been pretty much covered. Sword development was the result of not only armor but also tactics. The Roman gladius was designed short so the soldier could get inside the enemy's longer sword and thrust around his opponent 's shield. No real cutting edge but a sharp point. It preceded the broadsword by over 1000 years.

 

[JohnBiltz]

The foil was of course wrong. But the final cavalry sabers were emphasizing point over edge. A lot of the reason for that was military great coats were proving to be pretty good armor against a saber cut.

Swords, armor and tactics were always evolving. It is also important to remember that swords were side arms. Pole weapons were the primary battlefield weapons.

 

[ku4hx]

The Katana takes them all.

 

[jerkface11]

You shouldn't be looking at combat blades. Look at what nobels carried around in the city. There were difference schools for defensive sword use. Some required a dagger in the off hand. Some used a single slashing sword. Others used a stabbing sword. With no internet or mass media at the time the debate moved a lot slower though.

 

[PJSprog]

The Katana takes them all.

This was my thoughts as well.

This conversation has limited itself to western blade development only. Japanese blades went from straight to curved (of a similar design) and stayed that way for several hundred years. Even with changes in armor, only fighting techniques changed, not the blade. The emphasis there has always been on cutting with the edge, and not stabbing.

 

[Richard Head]

You have to take into consideration the material used to make swords. Early swords were made of bronze and iron which are soft metals and limited the length of the early swords. Short swords are stronger, the Spartan xiphos was as short as 1 foot long partly because of the materials used, but mostly because they liked to get close to their opponents.

The Katana takes them all.

The Katana is probably the most overrated sword in the history of the world. They were more of a ceremonial weapon and were rarely used in actual combat. They're not nearly as strong as some make them out to be either because the steel used to make them was of such poor quality. They're just too delicate and easily damaged to be of any use in actual combat. There's a reason the spear did most of the heavy lifting in ancient combat. It's a far superior weapon.

 

[Nom de Forum]

The Katana takes them all.

ROTFLMAO!

The Katana and Kenjutsu is vastly over-rated. Especially the Katana’s useable cutting ability compared to European swords. There is probably more nonsense believed about Japanese swords and swordsmanship than there is about the power of pistols and rifles. Despite the problems mentioned in the linked article below their have been contests of Katana vs Rapier and other European swords. In contests between equally skilled opponents the results are about 50/50.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knight-vs-samurai-experiences.html#.VjpCdBysNqA

Anyone interested in learning the truth about Japanese versus European swords and swordsmanship would do well to start by reading the articles on The Association for Renaissance Arts web site. http://www.thearma.org

Here are some relevant articles from the ARMA site:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm#.VjpG9RysNqA

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm#.VjpIAhysNqA

http://www.thearma.org/essays/longsword-and-katana.html#.VjpIvBysNqA

 

[ku4hx]

The Katana is probably the most overrated sword in the history of the world.

I feel the same way about the .357 Magnum.

 

[Nom de Forum]

This was my thoughts as well.

This conversation has limited itself to western blade development only. Japanese blades went from straight to curved (of a similar design) and stayed that way for several hundred years. Even with changes in armor, only fighting techniques changed, not the blade. The emphasis there has always been on cutting with the edge, and not stabbing.

Katanas work great against unarmored opponents but not so much against fully armored Japanese or European opponents. When opposed by fully armored opponents the katana/whatever other curved sword type user would have only few small targets where a cut could succeed and often a thrust was needed to succeed. The ability of Japanese swords to cut through armor is enormously exaggerated. In Japanese Feudal Warfare warriors armed with spears and polearms were considered more valuable on the battlefield than swordsman.

 

[Sunray]

"...the broadsword..then the saber..." Apples and oranges. Like Nom de Forum says, you need to do some reading.
Broadswords were not terribly heavy, for one thing. Weighed about 3-4 pounds and were designed for defeating the type of armour used at the time. Broadswords changed a lot over time. Primarily due to armour but also to increased metallurgy knowledge.
A sabre is a cavalry weapon. Light weight with a long cutting edge compared to its length.
In any case, swords were, in most places, only allowed to be had and owned by the rich.
"...nonsense believed about Japanese swords..." Yep. Only kept around because of the nature of the society.
"...military great coats were proving to be pretty good armor against a saber cut..." Like a frozen quilted jacket would stop a .30 Carbine bullet?
"...the Spartan..." The primary Spartan and other Greek city states weapon was a spear, not a sword. That went on until roughly the late Middle Ages.

 

[jerkface11]

Samurai were primarily archers. Using their sword meant something had gone wrong.

 

[Sunray]

"...Using their sword meant something had gone wrong..." Just like a troopie resorting to a handgun now.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Exactly, a sword was a side arm, like a pistol is today. Battles were fought with pole arms. But walking around with a seven to 9 foot spear or 16 foot pike is a pain. A sword you hang on your side and you can walk around with it just fine.

 

[hso]

We didn't start with broad swords. First swords were short.

We didn't end up at "foils". Light swords like it were principally civilian weapons for self defense.

Military swords in use were always substantial weapons or symbolic. Look at the 20th century military sword and all the copies long after civilians quit carrying swords in the west. The point is emphasized, as in the Patton (but Patton was a fencer at West Point) but the argument of the curved saber's thrusting, hacking and slashing ability still went on and easter European armies still used the curved sword for decades.

Even in "sport" fencing the sabre most closely resembles swords used for fighting since hacks, slashes and thrusts are all important sword combat tools.

 

[JShirley]

The katana with the mythical reputation was the sword the Japanese went to as their medieval period was ending, and firearms use on the battlefield was being common. The daisho combination was the result of a de-emphasizing of the sword's role on the battlefield. Prior to this, longer tachi, nodachi, and uchigatana were the swords in use in Japan.

 

[Gordon]

about a 19"-24" 1/4" x 1.25-1.5" sword with a fish belly point and swedge sharpened or not with a hand and a half or short 2 hand ergonomic indestructable handle would seem to be the best choice for today's battles at arms length if firearms were not available. Busse and others produced such items but US field commanders were having none of it
just sayin.
I think the move to 9mm has alot to do with weaker personnel's needs than any ballistic advances