LogFAQs > #945680036

averagejoel posted...

yeah swords were generally much less effective than thrusting weapons (spears/pikes) and larger, heavier weapons (axes/maces)

swords were really more like status symbols than anything else

I guess I had never really considered their utility against a regular wooden staff before, but it makes sense.

So yes, swords are generally back-up weapons, but maces and axes tend to be shorter than swords, not longer (unless we're talking a gladius or other short sword, or something like a dane axe or pole arm with an axe head.

They're also of comparable weight, just balanced differently. Single handed weapons tend to be of a similar weight. Axes you see in fantasy aren't what battle axes looked like irl.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


First of all, people can survive single gunshot wounds, you'd want to unload all of your ammunition at them. Second, do you think you can quickly switch targets who are charging at you with intent to kill and hit both reliably? If you mess up, you're dead. I'd certainly give you extremely favorable odds, but its not that simple or guaranteed. Unless you've seen combat or have a lot of military training, in a 2v1 in moderately close range, i'd put my money's on whoever you target first being dead, you being dead, and the second swordsman has been non-fatally shot.

---

You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt