Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx
Besides, the point being made by Tri-ring (though overstated) is that the edge of a battlesword of that type generally isn't razor sharp -- otherwise it'd be a mess after a battle. Such swords were generally "sharpened" to wider angles so they wouldn't be nicked into oblivion.
The velocity of the swing drives the cut rather than a razor thin edge in that type of blade. The japanese swords (katana) do run a lot *sharper* but their blades are made with a stiffer spine and a razor-edged softer iron.
Cutting force worked just fine until advanced chain and plate became common -- remember the whole sword/mace/spear vs leather/scale/chain/plate was a thousand+ year arms race, not a static picture. Besides even in partial plate or advanced chain, many vulnerable points remained.
|
You guys are forgetting that the shape of a sword also has to do with ability of cutting.
A straight bladed sword when swung down in a right angle will contact the surface in a line therefore the strength of the blow will disapate through out the contact line making a cleaving wound. A blade with a curvature like a Katana when swung down in a right angle will have a contact surface of more or less a point where the strength of the blow will be concentrated and when pulled the contact point will remain concentrated thus a slashing wound. Same principle used in a scalpel, it's curved blade is for a purpose.
Of course there are pros and cons for both weapons and can not be proven which is better and I have never implyed that either did.
A Katana has a narrow sweet spot where you can render a fatal blow where as a straight sword's has a much wider sweet spot because of it's shape.
I did read your link and it says much the same as I have elaborated, as he did wrote it
cleaved the opponent. Cleaving cut is a forced cut with the weight of a blade not a slashing cut like a scalpel.
One more thing the composition of the spine of a katana is a softer steel and the blade is the hardened steel not the other way around.