Swords that’re meant to be able to be held with that kind of grip usually have an unsharpened bit for that purpose. Alternatively, if you’re armored from head-to-toe, just make sure your gauntlets are on tight.
I suppose the point of a longsword is less “wickedly sharp razor blade to slice and dice with precision” and more “wedge shaped heavy piece of metal to drop on people with the hope of finding a gap in their armour”
If you want slicey-dicey, get a super-sharp katana or a saber. If you want fast and pokey, get a rapier. If you want a beating stick that’s 80% sharp edge, grab a broadsword.
Swords historically have a ricasso. That’s the base part of the blade, and it generally isn’t sharpened, specifically to be able to use half-swording (having one hand on the grip and one on the blade). The hand on the blade is often at like 1/3 of the blade tho. It was used to stab into weak points of an armor with precision (since swords were pretty bad against armored foes).
But also, half-swording is done by “pinching” the flat of the blade betweend the palm and the fingertips, in a way that prevents touching the sharpened thread. It isn’t shown on this (very historically accurate, if i may say so) image
Swordstaff says hi! As do nagamaki! Usually, though, it’s that half-and-half is generally a bad ratio. If you can grip the sword along the blade, then why is the longer grip needed? You’ve got a multi-purpose grip right there in your armored hands.
Alternatively, if you have a long grip, why do you need the extra weight of a long blade? That extra weight would make any potential slashing motions unwieldy, so generally a shorter blade is preferred.
Swords that’re meant to be able to be held with that kind of grip usually have an unsharpened bit for that purpose. Alternatively, if you’re armored from head-to-toe, just make sure your gauntlets are on tight.
I suppose the point of a longsword is less “wickedly sharp razor blade to slice and dice with precision” and more “wedge shaped heavy piece of metal to drop on people with the hope of finding a gap in their armour”
If you want slicey-dicey, get a super-sharp katana or a saber. If you want fast and pokey, get a rapier. If you want a beating stick that’s 80% sharp edge, grab a broadsword.
You’re both idiots.
Don’t act like you know what you’re talking about on any topic ever again.
Swords historically have a ricasso. That’s the base part of the blade, and it generally isn’t sharpened, specifically to be able to use half-swording (having one hand on the grip and one on the blade). The hand on the blade is often at like 1/3 of the blade tho. It was used to stab into weak points of an armor with precision (since swords were pretty bad against armored foes). But also, half-swording is done by “pinching” the flat of the blade betweend the palm and the fingertips, in a way that prevents touching the sharpened thread. It isn’t shown on this (very historically accurate, if i may say so) image
You can also turn it around and use it as a bonk hammer
Why didn’t we ever have something that is half grip/pole and half sword? Any disadvantages to that?
Edit: right, weight of the sword on the longer grip and can’t really cut with it. What was i thinking?
We do. It’s called a Glaive, it’s a polearm with a blade. Or if you mean like more 50/50 grip/sword - the Nodachi would be what you are looking for.
Swordstaff says hi! As do nagamaki! Usually, though, it’s that half-and-half is generally a bad ratio. If you can grip the sword along the blade, then why is the longer grip needed? You’ve got a multi-purpose grip right there in your armored hands.
Alternatively, if you have a long grip, why do you need the extra weight of a long blade? That extra weight would make any potential slashing motions unwieldy, so generally a shorter blade is preferred.