If you could build a sword with today's tech how would you design it?

[Kuntantee]

I'm afraid that's also a myth.

How did people deal with this type of armor?

[Mormolyce]

How did people deal with this type of armor?

You mean wear it or attack it?

[Blade Wolf]

Gunblade or...



Fusion Sword from Advent Children.

[mickybrighteyes]

I'd just get the biggest meanest looking thing and make it out of some lightweight alloy that could hold teh edge for a long time.

THAT or some go go gadget shenanigans like having the thing break into multiple swords so I could change style mid fight if needed.

[Kuntantee]

You mean wear it or attack it?

Attack/kill. Short composite bows can penetrate this armor, but it is double protected by an inner chain-mail so ranged attacks won't be effective as well.

[Tack980]

Long rapier- speed stabs always beats large slashes. You only need to wound a target to win a sword fight.

But with modern technology- whatever I can get a gun attached to. Long range beats swords every day.

- - - Updated - - -

How did people deal with this type of armor?

It's ALOT lighter then people realize, it only needs to deflect small blows and be resistant to blunt attacks from standard weaponry at the time. It's at most 20-30 lbs.
Only way to attack it is stab weak points on the armor

- - - Updated - - -

Swords designed to double as crushing weapons were actually quite common and effective in medieval times. You have to consider the fact that you often faced opponents in full plate. Sharp weapons didn't really do much for you in such cases. Denting the fuck out of their armor was usually the most effective means of disabling them.

Nope. Full plate had so much crap that can be stabbed that trying to blunt force your way through a skilled fighter will get you killed quick. The one's in full armor had the combo swords cause they tend to go against groups of people without plate, and even then the primary use was stab.

[Halyon]

...I wouldn't build a sword, I'd make something that shoots. A gunblade would be the closest thing to a sword I'd ever consider.

[Deleted]

I guess that a simple sword would do the job becouse nowadays nobody wears armors. It is funny becouse the sword, although being the representative symbol of the middle ages, it wasn´t actually the most usefull weapon by far in its lates centuries due to most knights having a full armor that protected them from sharp things... maces , hammers and other blunt weapons were actually more frecuent among soldiers.

[Docturphil]

Nope. Full plate had so much crap that can be stabbed that trying to blunt force your way through a skilled fighter will get you killed quick. The one's in full armor had the combo swords cause they tend to go against groups of people without plate, and even then the primary use was stab.

Well, no. Full plate did not have that many weaknesses. That's why it's called full plate. Yes, there were small gaps at the armpit, neck, and visor, but actually hitting those weak points was really fucking hard. Now if you're talking plate armor that your average soldier may have had, then yeah, but that's not full plate. Full plate was pretty expensive so only the more wealthy knights would have it.

Generally speaking, anyone who isn't in full plate against someone in full plate is completely fucked. You're going to die in such a scenario no matter what medieval weapon you have. But there are many weapons that are better than a sword against full plate. Maces, war hammers, poleaxes, halberds, and spears are going to be more effective. A strong blow to the head with a mace or war hammer could knock someone out despite them having a plate helmet.

Get a good blow to the head that knocks them down and dazes them, then continue your assault by continually bashing their helmet until you see their brains coming out of their visor. That's probably your best bet. But again, you're probably going to die before you do that.

[Tack980]

Well, no. Full plate did not have that many weaknesses. That's why it's called full plate. Yes, there were small gaps at the armpit, neck, and visor, but actually hitting those weak points was really fucking hard. Now if you're talking plate armor that your average soldier may have had, then yeah, but that's not full plate. Full plate was pretty expensive so only the more wealthy knights would have it.

Generally speaking, anyone who isn't in full plate against someone in full plate is completely fucked. You're going to die in such a scenario no matter what medieval weapon you have. But there are many weapons that are better than a sword against full plate. Maces, war hammers, poleaxes, halberds, and spears are going to be more effective. A strong blow to the head with a mace or war hammer could knock someone out despite them having a plate helmet.

Get a good blow to the head that knocks them down and dazes them, then continue your assault by continually bashing their helmet until you see their brains coming out of their visor. That's probably your best bet. But again, you're probably going to die before you do that.

Except anyone without full plate using anything that wasn't a sword, halberd, or spear was fucked going against anyone else. I suppose someone in full plate can go war hammer, but the thing was so slow to swing that someone can come up and get to a weak spot. But halberds, pole axes, and spears are more effective cause of reach on the swing / you can still stab with them (mostly). My point was that the emphasis was on penetrating on weak spots cause just randomly slashing in close range with a sword will get you killed. Especially when those in armor are highly skilled, and just as mobile as everyone else. And in the senario of this topic we were restricted to swords. Otherwise I'll go pole axe or halberd

[Docturphil]

I just started watching Nova about Ulfberht sword weilded by the Vikings. They claim this is greatest sword made by material and techniques.

Greatest sword because of the material? Horse shit. Modern steel is vastly superior to anything made before the 20th century.

- - - Updated - - -

Except anyone without full plate using anything that wasn't a sword, halberd, or spear was fucked going against anyone else. I suppose someone in full plate can go war hammer, but the thing was so slow to swing that someone can come up and get to a weak spot. But halberds, pole axes, and spears are more effective cause of reach on the swing / you can still stab with them (mostly). My point was that the emphasis was on penetrating on weak spots cause just randomly slashing in close range with a sword will get you killed. Especially when those in armor are highly skilled, and just as mobile as everyone else. And in the senario of this topic we were restricted to swords. Otherwise I'll go pole axe or halberd

Right, the whole reason for maces and other blunt weapons was to counter plate armor. So against an average soldier who isn't in full plate, a lighter sword is probably going to be effective. It's hard to just pick one weapon because no one weapon will be the best for every scenario. It really depends on what sort of armor your opponent has and what weapon they have as well. Your best bet is probably to carry two weapons with you. One for fighting opponents in plate and one for fighting light/unarmored opponents.

But we're limited to a single sword here. So you could either pick something bigger that could dent plate and have more of a disadvantage against unarmored/light armored opponents, or you could pick something lighter which would probably be more effective against your average soldier. If your goal is survival and not necessarily defeating your opponent you may want to choose the lighter sword. You can always run away from someone in full plate assuming they aren't mounted. And if they are mounted, well you're probably fucked anyways.

[Yvaelle]

Attack/kill. Short composite bows can penetrate this armor, but it is double protected by an inner chain-mail so ranged attacks won't be effective as well.

Armor was mostly for fighting peasants and brigands - it's super effective against piercing and slashing weapons. The only real downside was the massive cost (not only for that much metal, but for skills and time to make it).

The solution to fighting against plate, as a plate wielder - was specialized weaponry. Notably impact weapons and piercing weapons - the best of which was the Flail or Morning Star:



The idea was pretty simple - the weight of the ball is extremely heavy, but with a couple warm-up swings can get up to very high velocity (relative to a sword or other melee weapon). On impact, all that force behind the ball and the speed it orbits - is condensed into the tip of the impacting spikes. The result is a weapon that can pierce both plate and low quality chainmail in a single swing.

While high quality chainmail could redirect a lot of the force - it wasn't really a counter to a flail. The secondary benefit of flails was their ability to distort/crush armor - first by piercing it break up the integrity (spikes) - then by impacting it with more force than a 2-handed sword (albeit not nearly the reach). A hit to the leg or arm for example would puncture the plate, maybe pass through the chainmail - but more importantly it would crush the armor: turning your full plate into a cage of compressed and torn metal jutting into you, not moving properly, etc. A few good hits from a flail was all that was required to make even some of the best plate a hinderance rather than a help.

The challenge of course, was getting inside the guard of a trained knight wielding a sword/board, or long-sword, or spear: not an easy feat to get in flail-range - and worse still - if the knight knew what a flail would do to his armor - he could redirect all his attention to disarming or disabling the flail: not too hard given it has no range, can't parry, and it's not an easy thing to wield or dodge with: much like anybody who has picked up nunchucks can attest to - if you haven't spent years training with them, you mostly just hit yourself with them more than your opponent - now imagine trying to swing a flail, while dodging a trained knights attacks, with a weapon you can't parry with, and also not hitting yourself in the face with a flail.

Point is - as good as a flail was - you pretty much had to disable the knight first - and use the flail to finish them or flank them. It's super effective if you are behind an unsuspecting opponent, or your opponent is distracted fighting your friend, or if you have already knocked them down or dazed them - it's a really bad weapon to engage in a straight fight with.

For that, what you want is a either a spiked shield, or a halberd:



That, attached to a spear-length pole - gives you more reach than a knights sword - allowing you to offset inferior swordsmanship with better range. The stabbing functionality was mostly for dismounting horses or killing peasants. The spiked/axed sides though are where it becomes effective for fighting knights - an axe swing may be powerful enough to dent plate, but is mostly an impact attack for knocking them off balance. The spiked side however - is the same idea as the flail - redirect a shit-ton of force into a tiny point - which then penetrates and rips plate armor. The axe-end is also somewhat useful for sweeping attacks, which were generally effective due to knights having good footsmanship, but often lacking treads, and sometimes bad visibility to very low attacks with their helmets on. Even still - even a halbred isn't a good weapon for fighting face-to-face with a knight (again a flanking weapon mostly).

The knight's face-to-face solution to plate, was actually the shield - sometimes with a spike on it. The idea was simple - use swordsmanship to open their guard - use your shield to crash into them - potentially stabbing them with the spike - but mostly just to put them on their back: usually - if you can - by putting your shield against their sword-arms armpit - where they are most-often off balance (wielding the sword) and also tying up their sword arm from counter-attacking.

[Paranoid Android]

Greatest sword because of the material? Horse shit. Modern steel is vastly superior to anything made before 20th Century .

Watch the video. About 9 minutes in they talk the process. Basically heating steel hot enough to get more carbon. So again they used modern techniques and technology.

Fits narrative of this thread.

[Mirishka]

Pretty much this. If it's good enough for Scottish Immortals...it's good enough for you.

Would be a great line for a katana commercial.

- - - Updated - - -

Armor was mostly for fighting peasants and brigands - it's super effective against piercing and slashing weapons. The only real downside was the massive cost (not only for that much metal, but for skills and time to make it).

The solution to fighting against plate, as a plate wielder - was specialized weaponry. Notably impact weapons and piercing weapons - the best of which was the Flail or Morning Star:

<snip>

The knight's face-to-face solution to plate, was actually the shield - sometimes with a spike on it. The idea was simple - use swordsmanship to open their guard - use your shield to crash into them - potentially stabbing them with the spike - but mostly just to put them on their back: usually - if you can - by putting your shield against their sword-arms armpit - where they are most-often off balance (wielding the sword) and also tying up their sword arm from counter-attacking.

So I'd want a Bulwark of Azzinoth, got it!

Seriously though, that was an awesomely informative post. I read it twice, in fact.

[Deleted]

The idea was pretty simple - the weight of the ball is extremely heavy, but with a couple warm-up swings can get up to very high velocity (relative to a sword or other melee weapon).

That wepon look totally dangerous to use.... you risk hit your own hand with that long chain.....not that nobady have found a medieval flail that have a long chain.....

[IIamaKing]

Rather spend that 10k on modern steel armor that would be tough to beat with 1100 weapons.

[Mormolyce]

Attack/kill. Short composite bows can penetrate this armor, but it is double protected by an inner chain-mail so ranged attacks won't be effective as well.

As I understand, the effectiveness of bows (particularly longbows) is the subject of some controversy - the historical record isn't exactly clear on that point. Agincourt is the common example, the English prevailed against the French but the knights in full plate were predominantly captured rather than killed, and many of the deaths may be due to arrows in the face when they lifted their visors etc. I think there have been tests performed that go both ways - if I remember right Scholagladiatoria or Lindybeige have some videos on the topic on Youtube.

As for what we do know - the main battlefield weapons of the era were pole weapons; spears, lances, later halberds and the like. I believe they exert so much force that even if the plate and mail aren't damaged you can still kill the man inside. Similarly you had blunt force trauma weapons like maces though I don't know enough about them to say whether they were regular battlefield weapons. Swords were mainly sidearms, you can still use a sword against an opponent in full plate, you need to use techniques like half-swording and jam the blade in between the gaps in the armour, or sometimes the mordhau or murder strike where you turn the sword around and hit them with the hilt - basically using it as a mace.

Even mail isn't easy to deal with if you're armed with a sword - slashes are worthless and even a thrust might not make it through (depending on quality of mail and how it's constructed), you need to pop rings to get any damage through to the lower layers and that isn't easy. You wind up trying to attack around the armour rather than through it just like plate. Mail was extremely effective (and relatively cheap and easy to make and repair) which is why it was ubiquitous for centuries all over the world. The real advantage of plate is actually archer fire - high poundage bows fire arrows with a lot of force and they can go right through mail in the right circumstances (shields and helmets were your real protection against arrows if you were wearing mail). Plate is better at dealing with this though as I mentioned the exact balance of power between plate and later longbows is not fully understood.

Hell even "quilted" or "cloth" armour like padded jacks etc are quite good at turning blades. It's much more effective than fiction gives it credit for and was widely used by people who couldn't afford higher quality armour. And of course, the classic knight armour is composed of all three - plate, mail and quilted.

So short version - with great difficulty. Mail is very effective and plate makes you virtually invulnerable to direct attack with edged weapons like swords, unless you can close in and get around the armour. Later period armour got more and more sophisticated, closing up the weak points and gaps. But then guns came along and that was that.

- - - Updated - - -

That wepon look totally dangerous to use.... you risk hit your own hand with that long chain.....not that nobady have found a medieval flail that have a long chain.....

Yeah they're somewhat dubious, Lindy has a good video on them:



- - - Updated - - -

Watch the video. About 9 minutes in they talk the process. Basically heating steel hot enough to get more carbon. So again they used modern techniques and technology.

Fits narrative of this thread.

Ulfbert swords were remarkably good quality steel for their era. But I doubt they're as good as modern steel, we now have the ability to measure the actual quantity of carbon and impurities in the steel and regulating it.

- - - Updated - - -

First I'm going to regret mentioning this to the Gunblade people, it doesn't shoot bullets. It's a compression chamber that when triggered causes a vibration within the sword to improve it's cutting force (somehow). It's a vibroblade basically, the swords with guns in them aka gunswords actually exist, though in the FF universe the non transforming one was used by Weiss the Immaculate or whatever his name was in Dirge of Cerberus. Insert long nerd yell here, I know.. >.>

I always love that explanation, because that is way more ridiculous than the sword just shooting bullets, and gun swords actually existed. Albeit probably just as novelties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_sword

There's all kinds of crazy weapons in history that never caught on, like the key pistol:



And this insane thing:

[Aori]

You can give me the best sword there is but I'm still going to be stabbed to death by peasants.

So it is better I just take a 7' long Nerf sword and bluff my way through.

[Zethras]

*nods*
Very nice.
It was an improvement on old chinese methods I believe.
For skill and finesse I would take the katana or the Chinese curved sword (with curved hilt)
Still I would look at the Falcata for power.

Falcata is short as fuck though. Well designed and fulfilled the purpose of being a shield-buster, but the second you're caught out of range, you're done.

[Miyagie]

The epitome of sword technology, literally. Nothing can be improved on the katana.

Wasnt the katana one of the worst swords ever made ?