Quote from: Graewulf;998264Piercing isn't cutting. They are very different things.

Yes they are, that's why I said that piercing might work better;).

In some places and times, the scabbard was more expensive than the sword itself! Obviously this was not a purely functional one, but would look fancy, and help keep the sword in good condition - rather like some people's garages cost more than their cars, especially if they have any workshop and tools in there, have sealed the concrete and so on.

And obviously, it was harder to make a good quality long piece of sharp steel - such as a large sword - than a short one - such as a dagger, or spear head. So to my mind it's quite possible that in some cases wearing one was not a question of utility, but status. That's why historically people did things like have a chest plate shaped like muscles, etc - looks matter in the real world, even if they don't in rpgs. "Wear a sword, get +1 to charisma"?

This talks about swords and scabbards a bit. https://regia.org/research/warfare/sword.htm

Thanks for participating. I finally decided to make all sword edges do cutting damage, rather than have many of them do axe-like chipping damage. They actually roll more damage now than axes of the same handling weight but they are resisted by twice the usual value of the target's armor. Whatever damage does get through is tripled. That makes sword edges pretty useless against plate and against a few well-armored monsters, only marginally useful against mail, but otherwise murderous. I have a paragraph about what a character can lug around and that, coupled with a sword's advantages in speed and reach, over shorter hafted weapons, should keep swords pretty popular. If worse comes to worse, most swords have points that are useful, to varying degrees, against armored foes.

Swords have a particular value in western culture (among other cultures) that are attributed to more than just their utility in combat (which has been covered here, and is correct too).  Swords were the swords associated with nobility.

This was not universal in every culture; for example in India the bow and arrow was considered the most noble weapon (whereas in the west the bow was a fairly low-class weapon), while in India the sword was pretty much a tertiary weapon.

Quote from: RPGPundit;999224Swords have a particular value in western culture (among other cultures) that are attributed to more than just their utility in combat (which has been covered here, and is correct too).  Swords were the swords associated with nobility.

This was not universal in every culture; for example in India the bow and arrow was considered the most noble weapon (whereas in the west the bow was a fairly low-class weapon), while in India the sword was pretty much a tertiary weapon.

Even in Europe the sword wasn't the only weapon associated with nobility.

I did not know that the bow was so highly regarded (socially) in India, although I knew Arjuna had one in his chariot in the Bhagavad Gita. They made some good swords in India but I don't remember any literary "fuss" being made over a sword.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;999507I did not know that the bow was so highly regarded (socially) in India, although I knew Arjuna had one in his chariot in the Bhagavad Gita. They made some good swords in India but I don't remember any literary "fuss" being made over a sword.

Very important

[video=youtube_share;OkEvwRgphEk]https://youtu.be/OkEvwRgphEk?t=11[/youtube]

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;999507I did not know that the bow was so highly regarded (socially) in India, although I knew Arjuna had one in his chariot in the Bhagavad Gita. They made some good swords in India but I don't remember any literary "fuss" being made over a sword.

Bows were the big weapon in New Kingdom Egypt. Popular with the Assyrians as well.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1747[/ATTACH]

With the Japanese, too, the main and noble military weapon was originally the bow. It remained a military and noble weapon (and see Zen archery) but not the one main one. The sword became the main noble symbolic weapon and practical ubiquitous weapon, but in battle samurai would also (& generally first) use spear (yari), polearm (naginata), and bow.

I'm not sure of how valid it is, but I have heard it stated that expertise in archery was the primary status symbol for the samurai back when samurai were in fact the movers and shakers and that the katana got a prestige upgrade after-the-fact once firearms superseded the bow. Again, no pretense at expertise.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;999827I'm not sure of how valid it is, but I have heard it stated that expertise in archery was the primary status symbol for the samurai back when samurai were in fact the movers and shakers and that the katana got a prestige upgrade after-the-fact once firearms superseded the bow. Again, no pretense at expertise.

I think that's about right. However, the long period of peace had a lot to do with it also. When your most likely conflict was with one opponent at close range, the bow lost ground. And the polearm, like the rifle, was for when you knew you were going to need a weapon. The sword, handy to carry and cool, was, like the handgun, carried in case there was trouble.

If the historical murder rate of England was anything to go by, the most likely cause of trouble was everyone else carrying a sword "in case of trouble" and alcohol.

Quote from: Kiero;999875If the historical murder rate of England was anything to go by, the most likely cause of trouble was everyone else carrying a sword "in case of trouble" and alcohol.

There was no period when everybody or even nearly everybody carried a sword or was permitted to carry a sword. The privilege of arms was restricted to the peerage, although many people ignored the law. Even without swords, drunks manage to kill people.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1000101There was no period when everybody or even nearly everybody carried a sword or was permitted to carry a sword. The privilege of arms was restricted to the peerage, although many people ignored the law. Even without swords, drunks manage to kill people.

That entirely missed my point. The class of people who carried a sword regularly, were often the same people out drinking in public and getting into brawls. Which could often end in murder. Arms were not restricted to "the peerage", any gentleman was allowed to carry a sword until duelling was banned in 1817.

It's been studied:

QuoteThe increase in lethal violence in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries took place outside the home. The character of nondomestic homicides, which occurred during feuds, duels, tavern brawls, rapes, and robberies, suggests that relationships among friends and neighbors had become more volatile, and that many outsiders had become profoundly alienated from society. Why relationships among friends, neighbors, and strangers were more often fatal during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century was not merely a question of economic hardship or military mobilization, but of « the politics of neighbourhood »41. The crisis of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries altered relationships among unrelated persons in ways that encouraged homicidal violence.

...

The homicide crisis that gripped England in the late sixteenth and much of the seventeeth century did not make England the most homicidal nation in Europe. Indeed, it may have been the least homicidal. Inquests from the Netherlands50, pardon papers from France51, and criminal examinations from Sweden and Finland52, reveal homicide rates far in excess of those in English counties for which both inquests and indictments are available (Figures 15 and 16)53. Scholars have proposed a number of explanations for England's lower homicide rate : the suppression of noble feuds, the strength of its legal institutions, and its relative freedom from war on its own territory. Nonetheless, England suffered the same spike in homicide rates in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries that most Scandinavian and Continental nations did, the same recession in homicide rates in the middle half of the seventeenth century, and the same low rate by the early eighteenth century.

OK, I see what you mean. However, murders among the commons were pretty common also. And duels were not murder.