Historical Precedent for .225 Longswords

**Julius Augustus** · 07-03-2009, 21:47

Hi guys, I'm been wondering about the longswords a lot lately. They are almost twice as effective as similar units wielding shortswords. Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right. Longswords had good reach, yes, as well as good swinging power, but they also had the unfortunate tendency to be very unwieldly in a close melee. Which, as we all know, is what happens in EB.

Longswords are not very useful when your foe gets past the point of your sword. In a close melee, you don't have a wide range of movement, making it hard to do the powerful swings that a longsword is best at. A shortsword, however, is less effective in a one on one fight, but quite effective in a jammed up fight, as it does not require a wide range of movement.

Which brings us to my question. Why are longswords so lethal compared to the shortsword?
Any help is appreciated.

**Flavius_Belisarius** · 07-03-2009, 21:59

Because this is a game. Its kind a impossible to make weapons and tactics so exactly historical accurate with modding. I dont think that it is possible to mod it so, that longswords are only good in one and one figth, but bad in figthing a tigth formation.

**-Praetor-** · 07-03-2009, 22:43

Originally Posted by Julius Augustus

Hi guys, I'm been wondering about the longswords a lot lately. They are almost twice as effective as similar units wielding shortswords. Somehow, that doesn't seem quite right. Longswords had good reach, yes, as well as good swinging power, but they also had the unfortunate tendency to be very unwieldly in a close melee. Which, as we all know, is what happens in EB.

Longswords are not very useful when your foe gets past the point of your sword. In a close melee, you don't have a wide range of movement, making it hard to do the powerful swings that a longsword is best at. A shortsword, however, is less effective in a one on one fight, but quite effective in a jammed up fight, as it does not require a wide range of movement.

Which brings us to my question. Why are longswords so lethal compared to the shortsword?
Any help is appreciated.

Because a hit from a shortsword is less probably of perforating a mail vest, dent a helmet or breaking several bones on the target with one hit.

A well placed and powerful longsword swing will probably collapse your shield, split your armour and break some bones in you, no matter how much you try to protect yourself with your equipment. The inherent power of a longsword owed to its momentum potential is augmented by the fact that most of the soldiers wielding a longsword did so because they earned their sword with skill and past prowress, which makes a longswordsmen more skilled than a short swordsmen. The fact of swords being a symbol of status is seen on germanic warfare, and in the celtic world too.

Regrettably, we can't represent the loss of effectiveness of swordsmanship in packed environments. We would be delighted if we could diminish the effectiveness of swordsmen in enclosed spaces, but we have hardcoded limitations.

**Watchman** · 07-04-2009, 02:08

More or less what they said. Though it's worth remembering that shortswords give a bonus to the unit's base attack value (representing their greater agility and "handiness") and longswords don't; in other words, the shorties "hit" more often but each "hit" is less likely to be effectively incapaciating, and vice versa. Long slashing blades can do some awful things to human body, the relevant parts of which would here be the somewhat disturbing ease at which such weapons destroy limbs and the like...

Also worth noting that while long swords aren't really *optimal* for close-in fighting, if the user knows his business they work quite well enough there too. How else could such consummate shieldwall users as the Vikings have used every longsword they could get, for example ?

**A Terribly Harmful Name** · 07-04-2009, 02:15

It's important to notice in this aspect, that the proliferation of mail from the Ancient Age on was mainly due to one of the nastier effects of a good blade, and that is the capacity to chop through your limbs like an axe cutting a tree. The danger of infection, and the perspective of the loss of an entire limb, were thus prevented - it was certainly better to have a couple of broken bones than a severed head, arm or leg, and broken bones have been shown to regenerate with time.

Of course the best armor is not getting hit, which involves dodging and shields first.

**Watchman** · 07-04-2009, 02:26

...although we may note mail sleeves were pretty rare. (Though I seem to recall reading once there was some technical reason for that - something along the lines of the armourers not yet having figured out how to make the shoulder join properly.) Arms aren't very easy to hit in combat AFAIK - typically one of them wields the shield and is largely inaccessible behind it, the other waves a weapon at you and is largely inaccessible behind *that* - and from what I've read of it most would aim for the other guy's legs intead.
Which said, on the whole lower leg defences seem to have been relatively unusual too. Mobility issues, I'd guess - strapping metal to your shins is going to weigh your step down something fierce, if you see what I mean.