gerey
Arcane
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,472
Are we talking about IRL swords?while swords were ineffective against armor regardless of strength
Because claiming they were ineffective against armor is a big caveat, and depends wholly on the time period, type of sword and armor they are pitted against. Also, it needs to be mentioned that for most of history swords were not the primary weapon of any serious combatant, but a tertiary sidearm you used when you had nothing else. Granted, there have also existed edge cases like the Roman Gladius.
Even the samurai, with all the memes about them and swords, used bows and polearms primarily when fighting in actual war.
Swords pitted against chainmail can overwhelm the armor itself if enough force is put into the blow. Alternatively if you manage to get the tip into one of the rings there's a very high chance you can pierce through the armor.
When it came to plate armor swords generally tended to be ineffective, but if you were going to use one against someone clad in plate you best bet was to either aim for the gaps and slits, or turn the sword around and hit them with the pommel/guard.
Alternatively, a strong enough hit could deliver enough force to cause damage through the plate and padding underneath, even if it failed to penetrate.
Then there's swords that were specifically designed to pierce through armor, like various "mail breakers". And finally, you need to take into account the longevity of the sword itself - if it was truly an ineffective weapon it wouldn't have been used for as long as it has been.
Also, you did need a lot of strength to wield a sword, or any melee weapon really. They might not feel that heavy initially, but after an hour of wielding them you're going to start to feel their weight.