> On Apr 30, 2017, at 10:17 AM, Jeffrey Schwartz <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Suppose you loaded thousands of swords into a database, then tagged
> which ones were used in documented fights against others, and the rate
> of win/loss.

First, in any TL > 4, maybe 3 this is a meaningless collection of data because swords are no longer a commonplace weapon of war, and below that, the records are nowhere nearly accurate enough to draw any conclusions.

We have detailed records for *some* types of sword combat, but these are highly specialized (Renaissance Italian dueling records and such), but sufficient to draw any sort of conclusion such as that? no way.

And second, Swords don’t fight each other. People fight each other…with swords, within their cultural context.

There never was any sort of cross-combat between, say, a 12th century Norman with longsword and kite shield and a 17th century Samurai in armor with a katana.

Nor was there even significant matching of differing types even within the local contexts, because sword styles were developed for different conditions.  No-one ever used a Zwiehander from horseback, because they were developed for foot infantry to use against massed pikes. We have dueling records and manuals from 15th and 16th century Europe, with a handful of types and techniques, but then, those are unarmored opponents operating under a set of rules.

Swords designed to be used from horseback, for example, tend to all look alike: curved blades designed for slashing in an arc without the tip hanging up to dislodge the rider,  long enough to reach a foot soldier along side a horse, short enough to be easy to wield from the saddle one handed.

Swords designed for thrusting are different from swords designed for cutting. Swords designed for use against armored opponents are different than swords designed for use against unarmored once. Sword design followed trends, sometimes simply fashion, sometimes for changing conditions of use.

A small sword is designed for dueling, period, under an artificial set of rules. They were made to be pretty, because they were a fashion accessory, too.

At best you could do some sort of structural analysis of the blade designs against known counter-forces, but the main part of combat with a sword involves the human expertise (or lack thereof) of the wielder.

Famously the cutlass was designed to be used by inexperienced sailors in close quarters; in truth, hatchets and short axes were used almost as frequently, as those were very common tools aboard a wooden ship (thus multiple use devices), and are as easy to wield (probably easier, since they get used a lot, so there’s muscle memory.)

There isn’t ‘one true sword design’.

Frankly the imperial 'cutlass’ probably looks as much like this <http://www.leevalley.com/us/garden/page.aspx?p=65248&cat=2,45794> as anything else. As a close quarters combat tool against a spacesuit-armored opponent, it probably works as well or better than a classic cutlass, plus it would excel at disabling consoles, ripping open wiring panels, etc as you board and disable a ship.

--
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs