Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
I used to wonder, why ( with literally a couple of exceptions) do sub-Saharan African swords have such peculiar forms that render their fighting function almost non-existent?
|
I would have put it the other way around, that most sub-Saharan swords are effective fighting weapons, while a few are peculiar to the point of little function.
The non-functional ones are often regalia or currency.
The functional ones appear to me to be dominant in terms of numbers, at least among old weapons. While they might be distinctive in form, a thin sharp-edged blade of reasonable size and weight can be a very effective close-combat weapon on the battlefield where most soldiers wear little or no armour (and often little clothing, too).
As a broad categorisation of the functional swords, we have
- Broad short swords. Won't be as effective as a Roman gladius against clothing, but will be very effective cutters (not that the gladius was a poor cutter), and will do major damage with thrusts due to the width of the blade. Some of these swords are approximately of the same size and weight as a Roman gladius, and others are shorter and lighter.
- Hand-held spearheads. Swords with blades similar in form to spearheads. Effective thrusting weapons, and many will be effective cutters.
- Sickle/hook-shaped swords. This will let the wielder reach around a shield, and will deliver a blow with the deadliness of a thrust with a cutting/chopping action (perhaps a compromise solution to the cut vs thrust debate?).
I think that the distinctive designs used by different groups/peoples might help identification on the battlefield - an item of military uniform as well as a weapon.