sumdumguy wrote:
In case anyone still cares, the reason no-one used double-bladed swords a la Sara here is that they are stunningly lousy as weapons--you'd probably be better off with two separate weapons, one in each hand.
You can use one of those things like a basic quarterstaff, with your hands in the middle and alternating strikes with either end, but in that case all you can really do with the staff is parry blows and either knock over or disarm your opponent. In order to do any serious damage, you need to change your grip (which, on this model, would involve grabbing the blade).
Rather, the effectiveness of a given weapon for swinging (as opposed to poking) comes down to three things: number of hands used (more is better), distance between fulcrum hand and business end (more is better), and distance between hands for two-handers (more is better). There are some limitations to these (structural integrity of materials, strength of wielder, etc), but basically, the reason pole arms became the dominant infantry weapons in Europe until the widespread adoption of the gun is that they were far better than swords and lances (according to Wikipedia they could even pierce plate armor, but that's about as reliable as anything on Wikipedia is).
The question of leverage is irrelevant when you're dealing with magically sharp blades, but it still seems to me that Sara's weapon a) would be hard to hit the enemies vital areas with, while avoiding cutting herself, and b) offers substantially fewer options than two separate swords would.
As for officers wielding sabres is battle, and I alluded to, the sword is a stunningly poor tactical weapon. The cavalry sabre found a use, in that it was impractical to use any kind of long-shafted polearm from horseback. It was then assigned, in a somewhat altered form, to infantry officers as symbols of their superior to regulars.
However, some damn fool thought that since infantry officers were superior to regulars, they ought to be equipped like cavalrymen: sabre and pistol, making them not only less effective shooters than riflemen but also less effective in hand-to-hand combat than if they had a bayonet.
That said, if you ever find yourself in a situation where you're defending the city and all you have is an officer's sabre or mameluke sword, your best bet is to hold it with both hand and swing as hard as you can. Your biggest problem with swords is not missing your enemy, but failing to inflict a sufficiently serious wound when you do hit.
That's about enough weapon talk from me, I think.
Yes, it is.
Officers weren't issued swords after post-medieval cavalry had them, they retained their swords as symbols of warrior pride and status from earlier eras as mass infantry moved to pikes and various stages of firearms -- keep in mind that many infantry officers were mounted in combat as late the second half of the 1800s.
As for the sword as a poor tactical weapon, I wonder what the Roman legions would have to say about that -- they only conquered a large chunk of the Old World with shield and sword in formation, after all.
Even a semi-successful slashing or stabing strike from a funtional weapon-grade sword on an unarmored human body is likely going to disable whatever part it hits. Swinging wildly is going to end up making you more vulnerable and less likely to hit at all.
The idea of the sword as a crude, marginally effective metal club is one of those ideas that was popular in historical circles for some time, but turns out to be so untrue it's laughable.