: -RobRoy

An interesting discussion I must say, and one of the more obscure ones I have noted on the board. I feel obligated to respond to a bit of this. . .

Most of what has been put forth is quite accurate, however, I have a few points to make and points to disagree with. In response to some of the info posted in the above message (regarding using a blade as defense), I would like to point out that blocking another heavy blade with the flat of the blade is almost an assured way of having your sword broken. The directed force of the opposing blade impacting the flat of a blade on such a focused line would cause a torquing of the iron/steel that would have been fatal to many blades. The physics dictate that the blade is much stronger on edge than it is across the much thinner "flat." Catching blade on blade is much safer (although there were many notches!) Attacks and parries are made with the edge of the blade if the combatant can at all help it. Note the way the hilts are set parallel, not perpendicular to the edge--to catch an opposing weapon running down the length of the blade.

As for other factors: the curved blade as others have indicated is slightly more manueverable and applies the strength of the slash along the length of the blade (as it "slides" through an opponent). However, in addition to the loss of the thrusting ability that a straight sword offers, a curved sword sacrifices reach. A swing that impacts at the outer end of a curved sword will slide off the opponent doing much less damage than a straight edge that will deliver the bulk of the force to the target. As has been pointed out the curved blade is also less effective against heavier armours (plate and heavy chain). It lacks the focused impact and typically curved swords were much lighter than straight-edged swords. The giant Khopesh scimitars are an exception but were wielded by very very few.

Curved swords have been favoured by cavalry forces against infantry forces. The scimitar, the Moorish blades, as well as the swords of the Mongols and a number of Gothic horse tribes were often curved. The sabre (the sword that has enjoyed the longest military service in the history of humanity) has ever been the choice of cavalry officers. The ability to ride through an infantry force and "slice" your way along is met by such weapons (particularly after the decline of armour with the advent of gunpowder). Less force is necessary to achieve damage with a sabre type sword as a cavalry soldier can practically hold it out and down and let it scythe through infantry forces. As someone else has mentioned as well, curved blades, because they make long slashes rather than deep "hacks" are less likely to become lodged in an opponent.

The advantage of the straight blade, especially for an infantry soldier fighting against other armoured infantry, or against mounted enemy is the force of impact, the ability to thrust as well as slash (or hack), and it requires less skill to use it in a semi-effective manner. Of course to use a straight-bladed sword to its fullest requires a combination of skills.

Whew. . . I will save the rest for later.