Kajin said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Why do I say a sword, or a large axe? Because any nitwit who takes a look at medieval history will see what weapons left survivors on the battlefield.The sword is the most versatile of weapons (Namingly the european longsword for most makes) and only a peasent who couldn't afford a real weapon would take a knife into battle. Why? Because the enemy is most likely going to rain arrows on you first off (Shield comes in handy then) run over you with heavy cavalry (ever tried to stop a chain skirted horse with a 10inch blade?) or send in their own peasents. The 3 ft blade (Long sword) was the best weapon you could have next to a spear (Theres a reason why spears and lances were used in armies even into WW1 compared to swords which were more a decoration of rank) as it allowed you to keep your opponent at range, was made so that every surface was a kill area, and allowed you to parry weapon swings with much ease. Try parrying ANY weapon with two long knives. If you read up on your medieval history, you will see that one of the biggest advantages one could have, was killing their opponent before their opponent could get in range to kill them. And I am sorry to say, anyone conscripted into an army with any amount of denari would quickly invest in a longer weapon they could actually defend themselves with. The Pitch fork with all honesty was far more useful then a knife, as it could actually range an opponent compared to the knife that made you pretty much have to fuck your opponent just to be lcose enough to use it. Stop watching anime, or looking at assassin's creed, or lord of the rings, etc for how real battles went.
YAY! An actual argument!
I wasn't referring to medeival warfare with any of my arguments. If I'm going to be going into pitched battle on the open fields for the love of god it's gonna be the biggest sword and shield I can wield effectively. Situations vary, however. The biggest advantage of the knife is that it was small enought to be hidden easily and could be pulled out at a moments notice. There are numerous situations where a knife would be far more effective than the sword, the most common of which would be narrow spaces or heavily forested terrain. All of a sudden that range the sword is giving you that you were so proud of on the field of battle is practically useless because you have no room to swing whatsoever. Since my weapons are smaller, I do have room to swing while you yourself can only attempt to stab. The playing field is just about even because I have the terrain working for me in my favor now. My speed and ability to attack unrestrained are now my strength while your strength and ability to otherwise reach me from a distance have now become your weakness. It's still a matter of who lands the first blow, a feat that is now severely hampered for you.
As I keep saying time and time again, there are other factors to be considered other than the weapon and your skill with it. Environment, manuevarability, tactics, these factors vary by scenario and so should your weapon of choice.
Take for example the roman legionaires. Their use of weaponry as the ultimate defense made them so formidable that no man in his right mind would go up against such a force. Lured into forested terrain, their coordination was heavily disrupted by the terrain and taking them out could quite conceivably be childs play. Documents from that time period have testified to that.
Heres the problem with bringing up terrain. It is NOT because it rendered the swords useless, a sword was just as good at stabbing as anything else and can still out range your knife, while still being able to parry said knife swing while injuring your arm in the process. Why the legionaires lost was due to a few factors
1. Unfamiliarity of terrain.
2. Untrained in fighting in such terrain
3. Forest terrain rendered their team tactics and strategies moot.
I bet you out of all the enemies that routed the legionaires, only 1-2 of them who could afford better used a knife of any kind. A short sword at the least. Forests really arent as dense tree wise as you might think. Underbrush is a ***** yes, but not as many new trees grow as the forest gets thicker. Why? Because the canopy the trees form prevent the much needed sunlight from fully nourishing new seedlings. And again, you bring no point up that promotes the use of actual evidence of dual wielding being effective. Heck, you even negated by yourself one upside to using a single knife in battle, let alone 2. A narrow hallway is a killing field for short ranged and unshielded soldiers, why? Because as you said, we can only stab. But with spearmen down that hall, what good is your dinky little dagger going to do in terms of getting up close to the spearmen or swordsmen who has a 4 foot reach and doing a killing blow. Since you have a knife you obviously won't be too well armored, and the most chainmail would do (what soldiers normally wore for metal type armor) is help prevent the blow from going through you, a killing lbow would still be very easy, and possible with you outranged and forced into a narrow hallway.
