|
|
Post by Cole Chang on Apr 27, 2012 13:45:41 GMT
Hi everyone, my recent surface scratch into renaissance swords has gotten me thinking. Swords have really evolved over time eh? And their evolution is greatly influenced by other weapons on the battlefield. For example, as armour use declined, swords became lighter. Armour use declined largely because of the crossbow, but guns pretty much killed it.
We have a plethora of fantasy sword designs - a lot of them awesome - but most of the fantasy designs seem to be in an era where guns never came into effect. So, I wanted to propose this discussion and invite people to post pictures if possible - don't worry, I'm going to wrack my brains too.
Your mission, should you choose to accept: Imagine a world where guns either were not invented, or were never common use. Let's say that the crossbow is the ultimate personal projectile weapon. How would the sword evolve? Feel free to use different cultures. I'm curious to see what you guys come up with. While you're thinking, keep this in mind too. How would the sword keep evolving in this world? Say, after 5, 10, 50 and 100 years. Would it ever reach a pinnacle and then remain unchanged (until something else on the battlefield forced the change)?
Thanks!
Cole
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonely Wolf Forge on Apr 27, 2012 13:51:29 GMT
asuming technology continued as it is today? or assuming things stayed how they were prior to the gun?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole Chang on Apr 27, 2012 14:06:44 GMT
Lets go with both cause I think we get different evolutionary paths.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonely Wolf Forge on Apr 27, 2012 15:16:50 GMT
without the advent of firearms, i think armor wouldnt have been phased out, thus what wed see is more of the larger swords made to defeat armor, and alot more of the long pointy blades to pierce the gaps in plate armor, regardless of how strong armor is, it can always be defeated somehow. be it by thicker pointy'er blades, or big heavy blades that will cause blunt trauma, along with the cutting power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole Chang on Apr 27, 2012 15:37:34 GMT
I thought it was crossbows that started the decline of armour? For this exercise, we can theorize that crossbow and bow techniques have evolved as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Apr 27, 2012 15:58:05 GMT
Actually, armor declined due to many a reason, crossbow or bows weren't really an important cause.
Well, I'd imagine it would pretty much be like at the height of sword development in the middle ages, from the mid to the late 15th century. Armor is at its height too, so we see mostly non-swordish weapons on the battlefield, if swords, it's very pointy types, mostly XV and its cousins. But the sword really plays no important role in military conflicts.
Where swords are at their best is in civilian use. It has always been the most elegant weapon and a symbol of status along with its incredible efficiency in unarmored combat. This makes it ideal for a surrounding where armor is mostly absent but fashion and the status of the now very influential bourgeoisie is of utmost importance.
Regarding what kind of swords, one needs to look no further than the type XVIII bastards and longswords. In my opinion the absolute pinnacle of sword development, these weapons are most suited to civilian carry and duels.
|
|
Sam H
Member
Posts: 1,099
|
Post by Sam H on Apr 27, 2012 17:40:23 GMT
If armor continued to progress and had not declined then there would be no need for a sword. Instead there'd be a lot of weapons like war hammers, maces, flails and clubs in use. Short bladed weapons such as the stiletto and dagger would also become quite popular. Armor effectively negates the cutting ability of a sword but a bludgeoning weapon can still harm and incapacitate through hard armor. A short bladed stabbing weapon can be utilized in close combat to puncture the joints of armor and through eye slits etc. These would be the weapons used for the coup' de grace... the finishing blow.
Basically swords would become obsolete except for use in civilian unarmored combat and even then it would be relegated to the wealthy as elegant symbols of stature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cole Chang on Apr 30, 2012 9:27:34 GMT
Ok, that pretty much killed my hopes of seeing some "modern" takes on swords. What if we expanded this idea to include all hand weapons?
|
|
|
|
Post by Neil G. on May 2, 2012 14:05:23 GMT
I think it would depend on the level of proliferation of the armor.
If everyone had access to a full harness then I think you'd see a lot more puncture weapons like the "Ahlspiess" for military use, maybe with a shorter weapon for closer quarters battle/grappling - rondel daggers and maybe a mace type weapon.
If it was a mixed environment where some had full harnesses and others had piecemeal or no armor then I'd think you'd run into a lot of combination weapons like poleaxes and the likes. And you might see swords similar to the types XV & XVIII as backups, maybe used in conjunction with bucklers along with the typical rondel daggers as final resort weapons.
Either way, I think that civilian garb could be complimented with bladed weapons. I would imagine that in a setting where everyone has access to heavy armor these civilian weapons would actually take on a purely civilian role, so I'd expect to see more rapier-esque/small sword type weapons. In a setting where your civilian dress sword might be your battlefield backup weapon I'd expect the type XV & XVIII type swords to dominate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on May 7, 2012 23:03:02 GMT
I think that a combo-type weapon could evolve. Like this one I've drawn (Cerberus):  2 handed sword and axe that can be used as a double headed staff if needed. I was assuming that limbs will be covered with chainmail armor (similar to what is used against sharkbite) and some plates of armor for vitals. |
|
|
|
Post by Cole Chang on May 8, 2012 9:16:41 GMT
oooo, I like that one!
|
|
