Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2009 20:56:44 GMT
I was just curious, would a broadsword with a wide, thin blade or a backsword with a thicker spine but narrower blade width cut better?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2009 22:19:59 GMT
That depends on what you want to cut really. If your objective is to decapitate a cow you need mass to push the cut thru. A backsword allows you to reduce mass somewhat by providing stabilty and strength with the spine while you cut from one side.
I honestly don't know the physics of just how much weight you want to move a type of target, but the point is that either type blade can do a similar job if you size them right.
If you're not in the Schwartzeneggar class, you might prefer the backsword as a more agile type blade. But if you want to Rob Roy the job and cut the beggars a twain; keep the broadsword. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2009 12:59:42 GMT
Depends on the specific geometries and what you're cutting I'm afraid. The issue with the broad sword is that only one edge can make any given cut so the non-cutting edge is basically just extra blade weight. Extra blade weight isn't necessarily bad, but you can probably rearrange that blade weight to get a better dedicated cutter in a backsword. Because the backsword does away with most of the back cutting edge, it could be only 75% as wide as a broadsword but still be thicker to withstand lateral loads and have as good a cutting geometry.
Historically backswords often pick up a curve pretty quickly (like the katana, scimitar, or most sabers) that helps with creating slicing cuts. It's pretty hard to do that with a broadsword because any curve you put on one side retards the performance of the another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2009 13:32:54 GMT
This one's been done to death; the katana boys would tell you the backsword, since that most closely resembles their ideal geometry, but I prefer the European sword, which is double edged.
Cutting ability has alot of factors that must be determined before you can truly make that call- soft or hard targets? Armored or unarmored? Cutter's prowess? Quality of steel? Sword type (some Euro swords were good thrusters, some good cutters/slashers, some a bit of both)?
If your experience is with broadswords then the backsword may throw you a bit- only one way to go; vice versa, probably not so much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2009 16:25:22 GMT
...Does it actually matter? My impression was that European swords, regardless of whether they have one or two edges, tend to be so narrow on the business end there's not a lot of difference. The only blade geometry I've ever heard say actually impedes cutting is pipe-backs. This one's been done to death; the katana boys would tell you the backsword, since that most closely resembles their ideal geometry, but I prefer the European sword, which is double edged. Not all of them. Double edged swords were always far more popular, but European backswords have been around since the viking age. There were even rare single-edged variants of the medieval cruciform sword. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2009 19:45:33 GMT
What I probably should've said was I preferred the double edged Euro sword; that may have made more sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2009 17:43:20 GMT
Oh, I understood what you meant; I guess I just wanted to clarify that all European swords weren't double edged. No worries.
|
|
