What is the historical equivalent to a DnD Longsword?

[Sandeman]

As far as I understand, what historically was called a Longsword was a weapon that most often was used with two hands, although it could be used with one hand if needed.

DnD Longswords seem to correspond better to the historical Broadsword or Arming Sword. Bastard sword maybe?

Historical Greatswords (Zweihänder) should maybe be a reach weapon in DnD terms.

What are your opinion regarding this?
Do you care about the length of weapons?


Btw, I do realize that my "historical nerdiness" may not be shared with everyone who plays DnD. 😄

[Theodoxus]

Longswords are definitely most analogous to arming swords in pictures - the classic S&B Paladin in heavy armor and a "longsword"? Yeah, that's an arming sword. Statistically though, the D&D longsword is more often used either as bastard sword (in 5E) being a "hand and a half" versatile weapon. In older editions, especially 3.X, where the longsword had a greater crit range, but didn't have any added benefit when used two-handed, it was more like a sabre.

As for greatswords, I'd be ok with allowing them a trait akin to bugbears, where as part of the attack, you can extend the range to 10'; but unlike standard reach weapons, it doesn't threaten out to 10' constantly. I'd include mauls in that designation. Not sure what to call such a trait though... lunging? Doesn't really fit with either weapon's look, but it makes sense as the actual descriptor...

[Unoriginal]

As far as I understand, what historically was called a Longsword was a weapon that most often was used with two hands, although it could be used with one hand if needed.

DnD Longswords seem to correspond better to the historical Broadsword or Arming Sword. Bastard sword maybe?

Historical Greatswords (Zweihänder) should maybe be a reach weapon in DnD terms.

What are your opinion regarding this?
Do you care about the length of weapons?


Btw, I do realize that my "historical nerdiness" may not be shared with everyone who plays DnD. 😄

A D&D longsword is indeed what historical studies categorizes as an arming sword, as a weapon used both two-handed and one-handed (generaly with a shield).

A bastard sword, despite the 3.X rules, was most often than not used two-handed, like the historical longsword.

An historical greatsword was indeed used more as a polearm (notably for anti-cavalry and anti-charge purposes) than anything else. That isn't the case for some other two-handed swords like claymores, however.

That being said, historically, the terminology far less hermetic than what people retroactively categorize the weapons as.

[Sandeman]

When I use a greatsword in a D&D game I imagine it being something like a historical longsword.
Makes more sense to me.

[Dienekes]

Rule 1) The D&D weapons table is next to nonsense.

Rule 2) The names we give medieval weapons is retroactive and doesn't really account for what people called weapons at that time. For example a "great sword" has been used to describe three completely different types of swords over medieval and early modern history.

Now that said, going by modern parlance. An Arming Sword is usually an exclusively one-handed weapon. That said using the Oakeshott Sword Typology the Type XIII is usually considered an arming sword and there have been a few uncovered with a distinctive hand-and-a-half length grip which means they could be used two-handed, though probably not primarily.

So going by this, the majority of all Arming Swords would have to be Short-Swords because the majority were not designed to be used with two hands at all. But some of them would be the D&D Longsword. A few people don't think that a knightly sword should be given finesse though, partially because it doesn't fit the idea of a knight. But probably mostly because they've never used a sword.

On the opposite side of the spectrum what most people call a Longsword is primarily designed as a two-handed weapon, that could when necessary be used as a one-handed weapon. Often when you wanted to use your other hand to grab or pull or shove or something. The goal really was not to use a Longsword in one-hand for very long. You could do it though. It just wasn't what the weapon was designed for.

The best weapon in the D&D table for a Longsword is then... also the D&D Longsword.

So what's a greatsword? Well over time the medieval longsword got longer. It was around for a few centuries after all that happens. By the end of the longsword's use as a weapon it becomes kinda unwieldy to use in one hand at all. But it isn't quite as long as the real big two-handed swords like your zweihanders and claymores (amusingly neither of which are actually what those weapons were called at their time of largest use, go figure). Those weapons should probably have Reach if they were ever put into D&D. And the Greatsword does not. But I also think it's pretty clear that is what the designers wanted the greatsword to be.

So really it all comes into a range.

D&D Shortsword: Anything from a dirk to an average sized arming sword.
D&D Longsword: Arming sword with a bigger grip up to a longsword.
D&D Greatsword: Later era Longsword to zweihander.

But again, I should reiterate. The D&D 5e weapon chart is slightly better than nonsense. Just looking at the damage values between swords and axes should tell people that. Though the weapon weights are at least closer to reality than they were in 3.5.

[Clistenes]

A whole bunch of swords: spatha, viking sword, arming sword, schiavona, broadsword, chinese jian, indian kirach, arab saif... etc.

[Sandeman]

Good summary Dienekes

[Martin Greywolf]

It's actually even worse than what Dienekes outlined.

For modern terminology, we have loan words from german and czech infesting english sword names, and one sword word can cover a typology of swords that is pretty wide in its use.

So, for a comprehensive list, let's go from shortest to longest.

Daggers

Daggers, ballock daggers, dirks, seaxes, kukris and so forth. About the length of your forearm at most - and yes, by that metric, some gladii are daggers. And there are some really long medieval daggers that are about the length of a gladius.

DnD equivalent is dagger.

Messers

Messers, dussacks (well, one type of dussack, the other is pretty much a very slightly shorter sabre), cinquedeas, scramseaxes, war knives and so on. Their only distinguishing feature is that they are somewhere between a dagger and an arming sword, but no one can agree on where, exactly that line is.

This is what DnD shortswords are probably meant to be? Only they shouldn't have piercing damage, most of these are primarily choppers.

Arming swords

Also includes krieges messers, transitional rapiers, schiavonas and sabres - yup, there is no significant difference in capabilities between the two. There is a huge variety, rule of thumb is that if you grab it and let it hang by your side with relaxed arm and the tip almost but not quite touches the ground, it's an arming sword.

DnD equivalent doesn't exist, really. Probably a saber? Wait, no, DnD calls it scimitar to be special and... gives it slashing damage with identical die to a short sword. Huh.

So, if you map scimitar stats to messers and short sword stats to arming sword, you'll have something that's pretty decent. Well, it'll be odd for migration period choppy arming swords, but still.

Bastard swords

Much like messers, this is an arming sword that is not quite the two handed sword yet. At the shortest end, it can literally be an arming sword with a longer hilt, and no one agrees where is the longest one. Rule of thumb is that you must be able to use it in one hand, and this is actually how they were most often used - one handed with a shield or on a horse. Only if your shield gets broken or you are in an officially sanctioned duel do you use it in two hands.

That said, on the longer end, they come close to two handed swords, and some knights probably choose to use them rather than full longswords because they were more convenient to carry as sidearms.

DnD equivalent of this is a longsword.

Two handed swords

Some of the claymores and flamberges belong here or to greatswords. Rule of thumb is, if you can put the point on the ground and it reaches your armpit, it's a true two handed sword. These... can theoretically be used in one hand in a pinch, but it's not such a good idea. This is what most of Lichtenauer tradition (e.g. Meyer) is about.

DnD merges these with greatswords into one category.

Greatswords

If it's taller than you are, it's a great sword. These aren't necessarily used like polearms are, but they can be if you want to. They were meant as shock trooper or bodyguard's sword, none of that BS about cutting off pikes.

What about Zweihanders?

It's a german word meaning two hander. These are just a different name for two handed swords.

Where is the longsword?

Yeah, that's the problem, longsword is two of the above types: bastard swords and two handed swords. Thing is, if you use those in two hands, the techniques are almost identical - Fiore uses bastard swords, Meyer two handers, but both are referred to as longswords, because they are moved around in an almost identical fashion.

This raises massive confusion, especially if you meet someone into HEMA who doesn't really study other style than his own - he will tell you that what he uses is a longsword and that it has this and that characteristic - which is true, but doesn't capture the whole picture.

Broadswords?

These have no real place here. All of the above sword terminology is modern words for medieval and renaissance swords, and broadswords are from Colonial era. You do find some swords in middle ages described as broad swords, but that is besides the point since we're talking about modern terminology.

Rapiers

They are an anachronistic oddity, much like full plate. There are transitional rapiers, which are essentially arming swords with more hand guard, but true duelling rapier is the size of a bastard sword to size of a two hander, and not really medieval (latter half of 1500s).

What DnD meant by rapier, I'm not sure, but it is probably one of these.

[Sandeman]

Great list there Martin.

[Lord Vukodlak]

So this guy Shad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_90AkvkH24) has video on this subject. But to sum up. Consistent terminology for swords is a modern invention, what they would have called a longsword is going to vary by century.

[Greywander]

As some others have said, a longsword is most definitely not an arming sword. Arming swords were almost exclusively one-handed, while longswords were mostly two-handed. My understanding is that a longsword typically refers to a two-handed sword that isn't big enough to be a greatsword. Greatswords are so large that certain longsword techniques don't work due to the tip of the blade hitting the ground (it's too long for these techniques), making the greatsword somewhat of a cross between a longsword and a polearm in how it's used.

An arming sword would likely have shortsword stats but deal slashing damage (or rapier stats without finesse). It would depend on if it was a thrusting or slashing sword, of course. My understanding is that something like a gladius was a thrusting sword, so it would fit better with the existing shortsword. The D&D longsword maps better to a bastard or hand-and-a-half sword, though if you remove the versatile property and make it strictly one-handed then it could work as an arming sword.

I'm reminded of a scene from a movie I can't remember the name of, pretty sure the main characters were the three/four musketeers. In one scene, the musketeers are at some kind of banquet and one of the guests asks one of the musketeers if their sword is a "long" or a "short" sword, to which the musketeer replies, "It's long enough for me." It makes me think of a modern person asking a historical figure about their sword, when historically they didn't have that strict of a system of categorization. It would be like asking someone if they had a "long" car or a "short" car, those terms don't have any meaning to us as categories, only as comparative adjectives.

[GeoffWatson]

This is what DnD shortswords are probably meant to be? Only they shouldn't have piercing damage, most of these are primarily choppers.


D&D shortswords are based on the Roman gladius.

[Kane0]

A double-edged, straight-bladed sword primarily used with both hands but can also be used in one.

There are various names for such depending on time, place and style.

[J.C.]

A katana is basically a longsword. For Samurai Japan the katana was the clear choice for defeating adversaries.

[DwarfFighter]

Rule 1) The D&D weapons table is next to nonsense.

Indeed. I don't think these entries much represent specific weapons.

I figure that "Longsword" is a category of weapons that adheres to the stated properties: Value ~15 gp, damage 1d8 slashing, weight ~3 lbs, properties: Versatile (1d10).

This should cover a heap of sword-styles. In general, if your real-world weapon can't be generously assigned an existing category, you might want to consider creating a new category. I mean, if you are willing to put the oft-hyped katana into the longsword category, then a lot of pieces fall into place.

-DF

[Morty]

Indeed. I don't think these entries much represent specific weapons.

I figure that "Longsword" is a category of weapons that adheres to the stated properties: Value ~15 gp, damage 1d8 slashing, weight ~3 lbs, properties: Versatile (1d10).

This should cover a heap of sword-styles. In general, if your real-world weapon can't be generously assigned an existing category, you might want to consider creating a new category. I mean, if you are willing to put the oft-hyped katana into the longsword category, then a lot of pieces fall into place.

-DF

There's very little room to create new weapon categories in 5E and virtually no rhyme or reason as to how weapons are meant to be balanced against each other. My general philosophy is that if you're going to wield it in one hand and keep a shield on the other, just make it deal 1d8 damage and not give it any further thought. The versatile tag has a narrow use case at best.

[J.C.]

There's very little room to create new weapon categories in 5E and virtually no rhyme or reason as to how weapons are meant to be balanced against each other. My general philosophy is that if you're going to wield it in one hand and keep a shield on the other, just make it deal 1d8 damage and not give it any further thought. The versatile tag has a narrow use case at best.

So katana / longswords are kinda good. Wink!

[Eldan]

Longswords are definitely most analogous to arming swords in pictures - the classic S&B Paladin in heavy armor and a "longsword"? Yeah, that's an arming sword. Statistically though, the D&D longsword is more often used either as bastard sword (in 5E) being a "hand and a half" versatile weapon. In older editions, especially 3.X, where the longsword had a greater crit range, but didn't have any added benefit when used two-handed, it was more like a sabre.


It did have a small benefit. Wielding a weapon two-handed, including the one-handed ones where that is possible, allows you to add 1.5x your strength to damage. It's not much, but at low levels, an 18 strength fighter would do 1d8+6 instead of 1d8+4, which isn't terrible.

[Eldan]

A katana is basically a longsword. For Samurai Japan the katana was the clear choice for defeating adversaries.

In courtly settings and duels, maybe. On the battlefield, it was the bow or a polearm, like everywhere else.

[snowblizz]

For Samurai Japan the katana was the clear choice for defeating adversaries.

Nothing could be further form the truth.

The Samurai's clear choice for defeating an enemy was 1) bow, 2) spear, 3) sword. Depending on period you add arquebus to 1) and/or move spear up a notch. In any period of Japanese Samurai history a katana was distant 3rd choice for personal defence when you didn't have other better weapons at hand, probably because you aren't on the battlefield anymore (or broke the others). Or as a status-marker and chopping the occasionally uppity peasant.

[J.C.]

In courtly settings and duels, maybe. On the battlefield, it was the bow or a polearm, like everywhere else.

Nope. Do you have a reference for your claims?


Nothing could be further form the truth.

The Samurai's clear choice for defeating an enemy was 1) bow, 2) spear, 3) sword. Depending on period you add arquebus to 1) and/or move spear up a notch. In any period of Japanese Samurai history a katana was distant 3rd choice for personal defence when you didn't have other better weapons at hand, probably because you aren't on the battlefield anymore (or broke the others). Or as a status-marker and chopping the occasionally uppity peasant.

Hmm. Are you trying to tell me that the katana was not the favored samurai weapon?

[DwarfFighter]

There's very little room to create new weapon categories in 5E and virtually no rhyme or reason as to how weapons are meant to be balanced against each other. My general philosophy is that if you're going to wield it in one hand and keep a shield on the other, just make it deal 1d8 damage and not give it any further thought. The versatile tag has a narrow use case at best.

Agreed.

When the question is: "Why are the jian, the katana and the broadsword all treated as the same? Realistically, they should deal different damage to take into account their different qualities!" the answer really is: "Dude! Realistically, if you got hit with them you'd be dead!"

-DF

[Sharur]

Daggers

Daggers, ballock daggers, dirks, seaxes, kukris and so forth. About the length of your forearm at most - and yes, by that metric, some gladii are daggers. And there are some really long medieval daggers that are about the length of a gladius.

DnD equivalent is dagger.

Messers

Messers, dussacks (well, one type of dussack, the other is pretty much a very slightly shorter sabre), cinquedeas, scramseaxes, war knives and so on. Their only distinguishing feature is that they are somewhere between a dagger and an arming sword, but no one can agree on where, exactly that line is.

This is what DnD shortswords are probably meant to be? Only they shouldn't have piercing damage, most of these are primarily choppers.



With caveats, namely that I agree that categorizations are retroactive, and that a good deal of this is due to 5e streaming/simplification (i.e. I recall 3rd edition having longswords that pierced and slashed, and Kukris having their own table entry as slashing weapons), I would argue that in D&D parlance/classification the longer/heaver daggers are more like "shortswords", and the longer messers are more like short "longswords". I.e. gladii and their medieval "length-equivelents" would be classed as "shortswords".

In addition to mitigating the "piercing vs slashing" issue, the other point of classification is that D&D daggers have the "thrown" property, suggesting that they should be more akin to throwing knives than what would formally be called "daggers".

[Chijinda]

Hmm. Are you trying to tell me that the katana was not the favored samurai weapon?


This is correct. The katana was a very important weapon to the Samurai, but it wouldn't be their first choice on the battlefield. It was a status symbol. On the battlefield, a samurai would primarily use the Yumi or the Yari if at all possible, with the katana as a last resort (understandably so-- #1. a slashing-oriented sword like the katana would not be great against the armor other samurai would be wearing, #2. you don't want your status symbol damaged, dinged and chipped if you can avoid it).

[Berenger]

Hmm. Are you trying to tell me that the katana was not the favored samurai weapon?

Depends what you define as "favored", really. Greatest cultural significance as a status symbol? First choice for fighting fully geared opponents in battle? Most often carried for self defense during daily life?

Swords aren't terribly good weapons to kill heavily armored opponents and as such wouldn't be the first choice for a samurai engaging another samurai (or european knights fighting each other, for that matter) on the battlefield. They also don't exploit the strenghts of mounted combat as well as well as charging with a lance or mounted archery.

Swords are very good for self defense in daily life (and as a backup weapons in battle) because they are convenient to carry in a scabbard by your side. They are (by comparison) light, evenly balanced, don't have to be held in the bearers hand the whole time (which would be both unpractical and seem needlessly aggressive to onlookers), the risk of self-injury is minimal thanks to the scabbard and yet they can be drawn in a second when the need arises. This is a rather unique combination and especially desirable when you expect attacks outside of formal battles where a complete set of specialized weapons is carried and a full set of armor is worn. It's also hard for the enemy to grab and hold your sword (because it's all blade) and they are decent enough to parry when you don't have a shield or a suit of armor with you, but the main advantage is that you can have the sword with you most of the time.

[Morty]

As usual, it bears keeping in mind that samurai were a social class that endured for centuries and didn't spring out of nowhere. Just like knights, another victim of frequent and sweeping generalization.

[stoutstien]

Hmm. Are you trying to tell me that the katana was not the favored samurai weapon?

Yep. Kanatas really didn't become centrally iconic within the Japanese/samurai identity until the mid 1800s.

[Imbalance]

My great hope is that armchair anthropology gaming nerds have these same arguments 2,000 years from now about what terms to assign to various firearms. I get giddy imagining someone getting flaming troll rage over whether a shotgun was called a broadboom or an armingboom or how important the TASER was in the hierarchy of weapons carried by a New Jersey sheriff's deputy.

[Sigreid]

What you had back in the day is a bunch of craftsmen hand making tools around general ideas. Fact is, classification of medieval weaponry is messy at best.

[Sandeman]

My great hope is that armchair anthropology gaming nerds have these same arguments 2,000 years from now about what terms to assign to various firearms. I get giddy imagining someone getting flaming troll rage over whether a shotgun was called a broadboom or an armingboom or how important the TASER was in the hierarchy of weapons carried by a New Jersey sheriff's deputy.

😂
that would be so funny!

[Joe the Rat]

My great hope is that armchair anthropology gaming nerds have these same arguments 2,000 years from now about what terms to assign to various firearms. I get giddy imagining someone getting flaming troll rage over whether a shotgun was called a broadboom or an armingboom or how important the TASER was in the hierarchy of weapons carried by a New Jersey sheriff's deputy.

If your post-apocalyptic 5e-based game doesn't use terms like these for pre-Event weapons, you're missing a golden opportunity.

Though if you want to hide the ridiculousness, start with Longarm and Sidearm, then get into Carbine arguments.

[Berenger]

My great hope is that armchair anthropology gaming nerds have these same arguments 2,000 years from now about what terms to assign to various firearms. I get giddy imagining someone getting flaming troll rage over whether a shotgun was called a broadboom or an armingboom or how important the TASER was in the hierarchy of weapons carried by a New Jersey sheriff's deputy.

'How many spare clips for his M16 machine gun would a typical Portuguese Gurkha of the Napoleonic era carry in his saddlebags?'

[Sigreid]

'How many spare clips for his M16 machine gun would a typical Portugese Gurkha of the Napoleonic era carry in his saddlebags?'

None. The M16 doesn't use clips but magazines.

[stoutstien]

My great hope is that armchair anthropology gaming nerds have these same arguments 2,000 years from now about what terms to assign to various firearms. I get giddy imagining someone getting flaming troll rage over whether a shotgun was called a broadboom or an armingboom or how important the TASER was in the hierarchy of weapons carried by a New Jersey sheriff's deputy.
You mean like trying to distinguish the difference between a scout rifle or guide gun. Maybe the barrel length to stock ratio that makes a pistol a mare's leg or even steps up to join the mess that is the carbine?

Boy o boy do I have good/bad news for you.😁

@sigried. Technically they used both. Clips were used to transport and carry extra that could be used to feed in magazine via a spoon. Actually a good example of how mucky even recent jargon can be.

Personality I think the weapon list would be better suited as a list of functions that can be left nameless so it fits a given game rather than trying to shift the entirety of humans history of "finding better ways to hurt each other" onto a one-page graph.

[Anonymouswizard]

A bastard sword, despite the 3.X rules, was most often than not used two-handed, like the historical longsword.

The 3.5 bastard sword is a victim of presentation. It's listed as a one handed exotic weapon, but it's also a two handed martial weapon, and that's how most people* would use it because a Feat is an expensive ask and it's 15gp less expensive than a greatsword. In fact most samurai shouldn't get automatic one handed katana proficiency, instead using them as martial weapons.

* Not PCs.


A katana is basically a longsword. For Samurai Japan the katana was the clear choice for defeating adversaries.

Excuse me while I finish laughing. Although this has already been discussed.

Wasn't the standard knightly battlefield weapon a mace or warhammer?

In many ways 5e could do with collapsing weapons into broad categories. A 'one handed weapon' does 1d8 damage, can be used two handed for 1s10, and does the player's choice of slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning, while a finessable weapon does 1d6 damage and lets you use your dexterity modifier.

[Willie the Duck]

Btw, I do realize that my "historical nerdiness" may not be shared with everyone who plays DnD. 😄
If you haven't already found them, I would suggest the Youtube channels of some folks such as Scholagladatoria/Matt Easton, Tod's Workshop, Metatron, Lindybeige, Shad. Roughly in that order of actual knowledge/chops (although often the entertainment value is the reverse).

So what's a greatsword? Well over time the medieval longsword got longer. It was around for a few centuries after all that happens. By the end of the longsword's use as a weapon it becomes kinda unwieldy to use in one hand at all. But it isn't quite as long as the real big two-handed swords like your zweihanders and claymores (amusingly neither of which are actually what those weapons were called at their time of largest use, go figure). Those weapons should probably have Reach if they were ever put into D&D. And the Greatsword does not. But I also think it's pretty clear that is what the designers wanted the greatsword to be.
I think the two things that D&D never really got down was 1) What are the benefits of a 1H sword over a 1 1/2-hand sword when you are intending to fight with sword and shield most of the time (IRL, there's some real advantage towards having as short a weapon as you can both from ease of use, but also ease of wearing on your side that 99.9% of the time when you aren't actually fighting), and 2) that there are kinda-sorta two levels of '2-handed sword' with some functional differences in how you actually used the things. D&D always seemed to trim it down to 'sure, but can you use it in one hand (y/n)?'


So really it all comes into a range.
D&D Shortsword: Anything from a dirk to an average sized arming sword.
D&D Longsword: Arming sword with a bigger grip up to a longsword.
D&D Greatsword: Later era Longsword to zweihander.
I think for the combat system we have, this is about what makes sense.




Messers

Messers, dussacks (well, one type of dussack, the other is pretty much a very slightly shorter sabre), cinquedeas, scramseaxes, war knives and so on. Their only distinguishing feature is that they are somewhere between a dagger and an arming sword, but no one can agree on where, exactly that line is.

This is what DnD shortswords are probably meant to be? Only they shouldn't have piercing damage, most of these are primarily choppers.

You left off two of my favorites -- hangers and fascine knives.:smallbiggrin: These are the the same issue (ease of use and wearing) mentioned above regarding hand and a half swords, but on the other side of the standard arming sword.
As for piercing -- the entire D&D concept of piercing vs. slating seems to be ham-handed at best (and ham-hands probably do piercing damage for some odd reason). I know in AD&D 2e it was used to replace the whole individual weapon-vs.-armor charts from oD&D and 1e that people barely used, but overall it just seems like another tag upon which one can hang effects. Sure, some arrows, spears, stilettoes, and maybe the odd rapier (maybe) might have a point with no appreciable sharpening (such that you could stab someone with it, but not cut a rope)... and okay some swords chose not to have a specific thrusting point, but overall most blades will be both slashing and thrusting/piercing and the the only question is how likely one is to do so.

[Clistenes]

About katanas, I once read a book about samurai, and it claimed that, according to most contenporary records, the weapon of choice for close combat (once the foe was close enough that polearms were useless) was a tanto or a short wakizashi: Samurai would try to wrestle opponents and stab them through the gaps in their armor...

The tachi (and later the katana) was a secondary weapon for horsemen, or it was used by samurai to kill poorly armoured lesser opponents...

[JackPhoenix]

My great hope is that armchair anthropology gaming nerds have these same arguments 2,000 years from now about what terms to assign to various firearms. I get giddy imagining someone getting flaming troll rage over whether a shotgun was called a broadboom or an armingboom or how important the TASER was in the hierarchy of weapons carried by a New Jersey sheriff's deputy.

Excuse me? Everyone knows it's a boomstick. There are surviving documentaries about that.

[Sigreid]

About katanas, I once read a book about samurai, and it claimed that, according to most contenporary records, the weapon of choice for close combat (once the foe was close enough that polearms were useless) was a tanto or a short wakizashi: Samurai would try to wrestle opponents and stab them through the gaps in their armor...

The tachi (and later the katana) was a secondary weapon for horsemen, or it was used by samurai to kill poorly armoured lesser opponents...

Yeah, that's pretty much true for western knights as well with their equivalent weapons.

[Willie the Duck]

About katanas, I once read a book about samurai, and it claimed that, according to most contenporary records, the weapon of choice for close combat (once the foe was close enough that polearms were useless) was a tanto or a short wakizashi: Samurai would try to wrestle opponents and stab them through the gaps in their armor...

The tachi (and later the katana) was a secondary weapon for horsemen, or it was used by samurai to kill poorly armoured lesser opponents...

Well yes, that means that they parallel rondel daggers and some form of one-handed sword in European contexts.
I think everyone excepting JC are circling around the same basic point-- katana were, like most swords in most times and places, sidearms, and the idea of them being the primary samurai weapon is a retroactive historical reinterpretation of 19th century peoples towards their pre-ubiquitous-firearms past.

Edit: ninja'd
Edit: samurai'd :smalltongue:

[J.C.]

I think everyone excepting JC are circling around the same basic point-- katana were, like most swords in most times and places, sidearms, and the idea of them being the primary samurai weapon is a retroactive historical reinterpretation of 19th century peoples towards their pre-ubiquitous-firearms past.

The study of the sword was the core study for the samurai. They structured their understanding of other weapons and their very lives and souls around the sword.

[Kane0]

So was calligraphy.

Oddly similar to knights in some respects

[Theodoxus]

You mean like trying to distinguish the difference between a scout rifle or guide gun. Maybe the barrel length to stock ratio that makes a pistol a mare's leg or even steps up to join the mess that is the carbine?

Boy o boy do I have good/bad news for you.😁

@sigried. Technically they used both. Clips were used to transport and carry extra that could be used to feed in magazine via a spoon. Actually a good example of how mucky even recent jargon can be.

Personality I think the weapon list would be better suited as a list of functions that can be left nameless so it fits a given game rather than trying to shift the entirety of humans history of "finding better ways to hurt each other" onto a one-page graph.

I've tried on a couple of different occasions to do that... If the table presented had a little bit more consistent logic to it, it'd be feasible. Otherwise you're gonna make some armchair anthropologist with a wiki-degree in medieval weaponry criticize every choice that doesn't perfectly match their imagined HP destroying usefulness of a specific weapon category.

[Dienekes]

The study of the sword was the core study for the samurai. They structured their understanding of other weapons and their very lives and souls around the sword.

See the thing is we kinda know why they did this. Or at least we know why knights did the same thing. Fiore straight up says studying the sword is paramount. Not because it’s the weapon you use on the battlefield, but because every move you can perform with every other weapon can be done on the sword. Master the sword you’ve mastered everything (except ranged weapons and knives).

In an actual battlefield Spears and polearms are just better weapons. And if you’re up against armor knightly manuals agree the best course of action is usually to get something very big and very top heavy to smash. Because a sword isn’t going to do Jack unless you are very lucky and get the joints.

By physics alone that should hold true to the samurai. The two handed lever that is long and sharp is a great basis to learn the fundamentals of swinging weapons.

What prominence they had on the battlefield is probably not much. Considering the most successful war daimyo’s big strategy was “everyone use guns!” I’m guessing they were more practical than that.

[Clistenes]

The study of the sword was the core study for the samurai. They structured their understanding of other weapons and their very lives and souls around the sword.

Only from the XVII century onward. When the samurai class was born, their core skill was mounted archery. Later on, the importance of mounted archery diminished, and the use of polearms, lance and arquebuss rose in importance.

After the unification of Japan under the Tokugawa Bafuku swords (and daggers) were pretty much the only weapon they got to use for real... they could train with lances, spears and bows, but the weapons they carried around all day were katana, wakizachi and tanto, so when a fight broke, the sword was the weapon they got to use (you can't carry a polearm all day every day just in case you get into a fight...).

Kenjutsu evolved, adapting itself to unarmored combat; the reason the Japanese put so much focus in killing with the first slash was that, when fighting unarmored, if you don't kill or disable your opponent with that first slash he is likely to kill you in turn.

Since the katana was the weapon the samurai carried around all day and they actually used to fight sometimes (because there weren't wars anymore, so they didn't get to use bows and yaris and lances and naginatas...) it became the symbol of the samurai class and the core of their identity, but only from the Edo period onward...

[stoutstien]

The study of the sword was the core study for the samurai. They structured their understanding of other weapons and their very lives and souls around the sword.

They also did a lot of gardening and wrote poetry as core studies. the whole lives and souls around the sword angle was mostly flashy hollywooding it up like most pop culture. As others have mentioned the bow was really the core armament they focused on for most of history.

[Witty Username]

Systems like five torches deep have been growing on me because of this:
Simple
one-handed 1d6
Two-handed 1d8
Martial
one-handed 1d10
two-handed 1d12

and the weapons table is examples/suggestions for ideas on which weapons would be which, and can be ignored if they don't work for you.

[Anonymouswizard]

The few swords I know of that were of practical battlefield use were large enough to have a dull section of blade to hold while using them. Otherwise they seem to have been a status symbol partially in a 'look I am rich enough to own a tool only for killing' way.

And while yes, they have been cases of swords being effectively used on battlefields, they were rarely the intended weapon. Spartans knew how to use their swords (which my research suggests was fairly rare for the place and time, but I'm no historian), but still fought with sisters when they could. I believe the Roman gladius might have been a more commonly used weapon, but it still wasn't the battle opener (that was javelins). In general polearms seem to have ruled the battlefield, from spears and pikes on foot to Lance's on horseback, until equipping every one of your soldiers with ranged weapons was practical.

I'd love to see D&D go back to listing what weapons should be available in different historical eras, and would also love for 'simple' weapons to feel more viable for warrior types. Because the idea of a slinger really appeals to me. Oh, and up the damage of a properly wielded quarterstaff or add a metal-shod warstaff weapon, those things were deadly. Although in my games in fine with refluffing a mail as a staff.

[Hael]

That’s going a little too far. Swords were definitely used prominently on the battlefield. They were still using sabres in the First World War. The Romans used them extensively, Zweihanders and Tachis were almost polearms and things like Estocs were also frequently seen.

In some eras they were mostly ornamental, in others they were mostly sidearms, but indeed in a few environments they were primary weapons. For instance you don’t want to fight with polearms in forests or in tunnels, so things like swords and knives found there place there.

Weapons are merely tools that are part of a comprehensive battle plan.

[greenstone]

D&D weapons are just sticks with numbers on the end.

A "long sword" is just a stick with "1d8 slashing" on it. A scimitar is a stick with "1d6 slashing." And so on.

Well, it is a bit more complicated. There is Size, Skill and Type.

In terms of size, they can be Light, One-handed, or Two-Handed, with the addition of Versatile and Heavy. Previous versions of the game used the terms Tiny, Small, Medium, Large for this.

In terms of skill they are Simple or Martial.

The size and skill generally indicates the damage. Light simple weapons are 1d4, one-handed simple weapons are 1d6, two-handed simple weapons are 1d8. For martial weapons it is 1d6 for light, 1d8 for one-handed, and one of 1d10, 1d12 or 2d6 for two-handed.

For the type, there is Bludgeoning, Piercing or Slashing.

So a "long sword" is really a "one-handed martial slashing 1d8 (versatile 1d10)."

Given that, does it really matter if we call it a "long sword " or an "arming sword" or a "khopesh" or a "falchion" and so on?

[Yanagi]

Excuse me? Everyone knows it's a boomstick. There are surviving documentaries about that.

A great deal of post-apocalypse information about material culture will come from Bruce Campbell movies.

The preferred weapon of the samurai was the chainsaw hand.

[Kane0]

Given that, does it really matter if we call it a "long sword " or an "arming sword" or a "khopesh" or a "falchion" and so on?
Well yeah, how else are we on the internet supposed to decide who's stick is bigger and/or better?


Excuse me? Everyone knows it's a boomstick. There are surviving documentaries about that.


The preferred weapon of the samurai was the chainsaw hand.
And carbines were of course favored for their use in drive-byes in automocars (powered by a tank of burning fossils).

[Yanagi]

And carbines were of course favored for their use in drive-byes in automocars (powered by a tank of burning fossils).

Today we shall learn about the Pennsylvanian general Heinz "52" Guderian and the doofwagon tactics that allowed him to conquer France while only taking half as much speed per day as your average post-apocalyptic raider.

This maneuver came to be known as rickrolling, and would have completely destroyed the army of Monty Python on the beaches of Normandy if Tina Turner had suddenly called a halt to the advance allowing most of the children to escape with the gasoline...sorry, I meant gazoleen.

[greenstone]

Well yeah, how else are we on the internet supposed to decide who's stick is bigger and/or better?

You, <format pronoun of choice>, hereby win one (1) Internet.

[Anonymouswizard]

That’s going a little too far. Swords were definitely used prominently on the battlefield. They were still using sabres in the First World War. The Romans used them extensively, Zweihanders and Tachis were almost polearms and things like Estocs were also frequently seen.

In some eras they were mostly ornamental, in others they were mostly sidearms, but indeed in a few environments they were primary weapons. For instance you don’t want to fight with polearms in forests or in tunnels, so things like swords and knives found there place there.

Weapons are merely tools that are part of a comprehensive battle plan.

Sure, I was being overly simplistic and dismissing the Roman gladius because it's right at the other end of the scale compared to the katana (being a really short sword used for stabbing). Yes there were periods and cultures where the sword saw common battlefield use, but to my knowledge they're the reception instead of the nuyen.

Swords did have legitimate battlefield uses, but it varied depending on the time and the sword. They were also never completely useless, and even if a spear is better having a series is better then having no weapon.

As a side note, I think I once had dwarves use four foot spears* instead of axes, the idea being that in a tunnel poking from behind a shield is better than swinging an axe that might hit the walls. But yeah, a full sized polearm would be next to useless, which is why most D&D characters probably shouldn't use them (the same applies to several kinds of two handed sword).

Actually dwarven tactics were the only ones I developed for that setting, because they'd be what adventurers are most likely to use. The front line forms a shield wall while those at the back ready replacement spears, and they avoided fighting in caverns at all costs, falling back to tunnels if at all possible. Barring dwarven farmers of course, they're too valuable to send into battle.

* Slightly shorter than a dwarf, so lowering them in dwarfs tunnels isn't a hassle.

[JackPhoenix]

I have no idea what autocorrect are you using, but it's kinda hilarious

[Theodoxus]

And carbines were of course favored for their use in drive-byes in automocars (powered by a tank of burning fossils).

"Dude, check it out! We're gonna be rich!" as PostApoc scavenger finds a buried Natural History Museum.

[Anonymouswizard]

I have no idea what autocorrect are you using, but it's kinda hilarious


It's standard android Swiftkey. I talk to my partners much more than post on the forum, so it tends to assume that's what I'm doing.

You can tell if I'm on my phone or laptop because the latter gives far fewer autocorrect errors.

[Dienekes]

Sure, I was being overly simplistic and dismissing the Roman gladius because it's right at the other end of the scale compared to the katana (being a really short sword used for stabbing). Yes there were periods and cultures where the sword saw common battlefield use, but to my knowledge they're the reception instead of the nuyen.

Swords did have legitimate battlefield uses, but it varied depending on the time and the sword. They were also never completely useless, and even if a spear is better having a series is better then having no weapon.

As a side note, I think I once had dwarves use four foot spears* instead of axes, the idea being that in a tunnel poking from behind a shield is better than swinging an axe that might hit the walls. But yeah, a full sized polearm would be next to useless, which is why most D&D characters probably shouldn't use them (the same applies to several kinds of two handed sword).

Actually dwarven tactics were the only ones I developed for that setting, because they'd be what adventurers are most likely to use. The front line forms a shield wall while those at the back ready replacement spears, and they avoided fighting in caverns at all costs, falling back to tunnels if at all possible. Barring dwarven farmers of course, they're too valuable to send into battle.

* Slightly shorter than a dwarf, so lowering them in dwarfs tunnels isn't a hassle.

Dwarven tactics are a bit strange and interesting. Because there’s a lot of stuff to work with.

On the one hand axes aren’t all that bad a weapon, especially if the dwarves are primarily miners. Swinging a pick or hammer over the shoulder fairly straight down is pretty analogous to using an axe in formations. The wide lumberjack style swing doesn’t seem to happen much as best we’re able to tell. This makes axes actually pretty good to use in formation and as previously stated using the same muscle memory that dwarves would naturally accumulate in their work. Which I think makes dwarven axes pretty reasonable.

But the dynamics of tunnel warfare is pretty vague. Is there even enough room to make formations? Is it straight enough for even short spears to be effective?

I kind of see the professional dwarven military to focus far more on using smaller individual style shields and something close and personal like a short sword for use in extreme situations.

But most dwarven warfare would probably be less about fighting directly. And more about collapsing parts of the tunnels down on their enemy.

[Martin Greywolf]

You left off two of my favorites -- hangers and fascine knives.:smallbiggrin:

Oh, I left out many more than that, including all of Asia.


Sure, I was being overly simplistic and dismissing the Roman gladius because it's right at the other end of the scale compared to the katana (being a really short sword used for stabbing).

Only we know that gladius isn't a thrusting sword, because Vegetius explicitly tells us that almost all of the soldiers use it to cut instead. Sure, he claims that they should thrust instead, but this is eerily similar to Vicotrian cut vs thrust debates, and those can only happen when the sword in question can do both about equally well.

Samurai

Look, it needs to be said - stop arguing with facts from some article you read somewhere on the internet. There is a perfectly good translation, available for free, written by arguably the best samurai to ever live, where he lists the order of weapon power on battlefield: The Book of Five Rings by Musashi. It's required reading for discussing early Edo/late Sengoku Jidai warfare and combat in Japan.

To quote him:



The Benefit of Weapons in Strategy

There is a time and place for use of weapons.

The best use of the companion sword [wakizashi] is in a confined space, or when you are engaged closely with an opponent. The long sword [katana] can be used effectively in all situations.

The halberd [naginata] is inferior to the spear [yari] on the battlefield. With the spear you can take the initiative; the halberd is defensive. In the hands of one of two men of equal ability, the spear gives a little extra strength. Spear and halberd both have their uses, but neither is very beneficial in confined spaces. They cannot be used for taking a prisoner. They are essentially weapons for the field.

Anyway, if you learn "indoor" techniques, you will think narrowly and forget the true Way. Thus you will have difficulty in actual encounters.

The bow is tactically strong at the commencement of battle, especially battles on a moor, as it is possible to shoot quickly from among the spearmen. However, it is unsatisfactory in sieges, or when the enemy is more than forty yards away. For this reason there are nowadays few traditional schools of archery. There is little use nowadays for this kind of skill.

From inside fortifications, the gun has no equal among weapons. It is the supreme weapon on the field before the ranks clash, but once swords are crossed the gun becomes useless. One of the virtues of the bow is that you can see the arrows in flight and correct your aim accordingly, whereas gunshot cannot be seen. You must appreciate the importance of this.

[...]

You should not have a favourite weapon. To become over-familiar with one weapon is as much a fault as not knowing it sufficiently well. You should not copy others, but use weapons which you can handle properly. It is bad for commanders and troopers to have likes and dislikes. These are things you must learn thoroughly.


Dwarven tunnel fighters

Let's not forget that dwarves will have to come out of those tunnels at some point, so they will need something for the field as well - especially some way of dealing with cavalry.

[Clistenes]

Look, it needs to be said - stop arguing with facts from some article you read somewhere on the internet. There is a perfectly good translation, available for free, written by arguably the best samurai to ever live, where he lists the order of weapon power on battlefield: The Book of Five Rings by Musashi. It's required reading for discussing early Edo/late Sengoku Jidai warfare and combat in Japan.

I have read the Book of Five Rings, but the translation I read uses "pike" where you write "halberd"; I think the original text probably mentions long and short yaris.

The text itself pretty much implies the katana was a support weapon: At a range above 40 steps, you use the arquebuss; at a range under 40 steps, the bow is better; the spear has the advantage in melee in open spaces (and it was considered more powerful than the katana; it was said that a spearman could defeat a swordsman three times as skilled...); the wakizashi is good for close combat and confined spaces.

The katana, on the other hand, is a versatile weapon that is good as support: you fight as a gunman or archer, and if the enemy gets close, you use the katana. Or you can use it to capture and control prisoners after battle.

You also have to take into account that Miyamoto Musashi lived during the transitional period between the Sengoku (Civil War) Age and the Edo Shogunate. When young he fought as a foot soldier in one or two battles on the losing side, and afterwards he made his reputation not as a soldier, but as duelist specialized in unarmored dueling with katana or bokken (that said, some of his "duels" sound more like gang wars than what we understand as duels, with both Musashi and his foes using tactics like ambushes, surprise attacks or ganging en masse on a single opponent...).

In short, he wasn't an authority on Samurai warfare, but in Samurai unarmored dueling...

The book I mentioned earlier was Samurai: The Story of Japan's Great Warriors by Stephen Turnbull. It describes the evolution of Samurai warfare, quoting many contemporary records.

It seems the Samurai Era began with armies or commoners wielding large wooden shields and spears, but samurai mounted archers quickly rose to relevance; they favored a style of warfare based on smaller and quicker units, using lots of nocturnal surprise attacks and lots of arson. When they fought actual battles, samurai units would duel on horseback before battle, shooting arrows at each other, and when the armies clashed, they would seek other samurai and fight on horseback with their tachis.

The samurai greatly preferred to fight on horseback, but, when forced to fight on foot (because they were fighting in mountainous terrain, during a siege...etc.) they still dueled their counterparts with their bows, until the armies clashed, and then they cut the ashigaru with their swords (ashigaru usually had their arms, legs and face unprotected), but their goal was to face other samurai, and when they did, they used the tanto more often than the sword.

The number and quality of commoner infantry (later known as ashigaru) kept diminishing, and the mounted samurai archers became the backbone and the main strength of the armies.

Eventually the daimyo raised large troops of ashigaru archers, and the use of spear and shield became less prominent, until the shield was ditched entirely, and the spear-wielding footmen became a mere support to the archers. These ashigaru archers (also called nobushi) favored a guerrilla style warfare.

The daimyo and samurai from that period tended to see "ashigaru warfare" as distasteful and as a stopgap to compensate for numerical disadvantage when facing a superior samurai army, but they kept raising even larger ashigaru and nobushi armies, anyways...

At the end of the era of samurai warfare large units of foot soldiers fighting with spears (but not shields) in dense formations dominated the battlefield again, still supported by large numbers of nobushi. Later on, the arquebuss was imported, becoming the dominant weapon just before the unification of Japan, and the bow was demoted to a support role (keeping the pace when arquebuss fire slowed down).

The bow lost its prominence among samurai too: Massed charges of mounted lancers largely replaced mounted archery shortly before the adoption of the arquebuss. As for samurai fighting on foot, their main role was no longer as archers, but as officers (they still tried to find other samurai and duel them when they could, though...).

[Anonymouswizard]

Only we know that gladius isn't a thrusting sword, because Vegetius explicitly tells us that almost all of the soldiers use it to cut instead. Sure, he claims that they should thrust instead, but this is eerily similar to Vicotrian cut vs thrust debates, and those can only happen when the sword in question can do both about equally well.

Serves me right for not doing the proper research.

Still, the galdius is a very different beast to the katana and wakizashi, being paired with a really big shield. And I'd argue the actual important part of the Roman legions was not the arms and armour (although those were very good and suited to their roles) but the discipline.


As a side note, I've al3ways heard that bows versus guns wasn't as clear cut, that for a couple of hundred years both had their advantages and disadvantages, but that in the end bows lost due to a lack of suitable wood and requiring practice from early ages for a longbowman to equal an arquebusier. England did technically have compulsory longbow practice every Sunday after church as a law for a surprisingly long time, it just stopped being enforced. Eventually the time and cost investment in a longbowman was just too much, but there were occasionally proposals, at least in England, about fielding them again.

[warty goblin]

When it comes to bows vs guns, I think there are two points that need to be emphasized:

1) Bows are muscle-powered. Even if bows and guns are equally effective, one would expect that over a reasonable period of time, guns would win out simply because they aren't nearly as exhausting to use, and given the choice people will gravitate towards the option that requires less work. This also means making guns more powerful is relatively easy; just make it bigger. There's a definite limit to this, but it isn't going to run into the hard limits of human physical ability nearly as quickly as upping the draw weight of a bow will.

2) Bows are less deadly than guns. Remember early guns are firing big chunks of lead at (for firearms) low velocity, these make very, very nasty wounds. And unlike arrows, a bullet does not fill the wound cavity, slowing blood loss. And while arrows are supremely efficient penetrators, you can just keep dumping more energy into bullets. Note that full body armor was, by the 1400's, pretty reliably arrow proof, but with the rise of firearms, proofing any more than the breastplate against bullets was pretty much out the window.

None of these are things that a game like D&D represents all that well. Human endurance simply isn't modeled to any meaningful degree, and armor penetration is completely abstracted. And the game (probably rightly) shies away from multi-round reloading very, very hard. Since nobody wants to be reduced to rolling one attack every three rounds, the low rate of fire of early firearms simply cannot be included.

[Amdy_vill]

As far as I understand, what historically was called a Longsword was a weapon that most often was used with two hands, although it could be used with one hand if needed.

DnD Longswords seem to correspond better to the historical Broadsword or Arming Sword. Bastard sword maybe?

Historical Greatswords (Zweihänder) should maybe be a reach weapon in DnD terms.

What are your opinion regarding this?
Do you care about the length of weapons?


Btw, I do realize that my "historical nerdiness" may not be shared with everyone who plays DnD. 😄

hand and a half sword would be the proper historical term. The bastard sword and arming sword are "modern" terms, by modern I mean the 1600's and 1800's long after they fell out of favor in combat.

in regards to other ideas of historical weapons, you would need to make weapons more granular. when we talk about stuff like hand and s half-sword we are mostly talking about the size and not the shape of the weapon. if we wanted to make 5e weapons more historical we would need to expand the weapon selection massively. to be honest the greatsword is not likely a Zweihänder it's more likely a longsword. Zweihänder is more specialized than what the game describes.