Posted: February 09, 2000 at 09:03:14: by Dave C-Q
: : I think that curved swords were of more use in confined areas. It is notable that the roman sword was not very long at all, used mainly for close quarter work. Perhaps due to limited no.s they wanted to use a longer sword to give a greater 'sweep', i.e to hit as many enemy as possible per blow. Of course, if we assume that the men of the west had superior tactics then this would not apply, as longer swords limit tactical formations due to greater room needed.: The curved sword is no more useful than a straight sword in close quarters. There are a large number of historically documented techniques for close in fighting with straight bladed swords. In deed the English and 'Germans' of the middle-ages and renaissance were well known for doing just that. It would be difficult and not particularly effective to try and strike two or more opponents the same blow (if that is what you are suggesting above). :
: : Double edged swords have the advantage of cutting on both directional swings, there being no need to change grip.As to why the enemy don't have them, I suppose that they are very time consuming and technically difficult to produce, not in line with the other races lesser achievements. : Curved swords are no less difficult to make than straight bladed swords AFAIK. Generally, straight (particularly double-edged) swords *are* more difficult to make (though some curved ones were as complicated, like the Japanese katana). This is because single-edged swords curve naturally. When they are being forged, they are straight, then cool into a natural and even curve (if they were forged properly). Straight swords have to be worked constantly as they cool, in order to keep them from curving. BTW, I've enjoyed this discussion tremendously. Thank you all. Cheers. Dave C-Q
|
