Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aiontay
I'm sure it was a good cutter. I suspect though that it was the training and tactics that made it even better. I just think the artillery guys were handed a sword that frankly they didn't know how to use by people that thought it looked cool rather than really thought through if it was the best weapon for the job at hand.
|
While I honestly don't think much of the artillery swords for various reasons (I'm not fond of metal handles, for one thing), I don't think they were intrinsically a bad idea.
Short swords were used by everyone from the hoplites to the legions for a variety of types of warfare, over a variety of terrains, for about 700 years, give or take, and they were generally side arms for people who used something else as a first weapon. Versions were carried by gladiators and by civilians.
Someone with a classical education would know this. They probably did not have a good idea of what would make a good short sword (archeology being in its infancy at that point, they'd have to depend on Trajan's column and similar artworks for designs), but when they were casting around for a good side weapon for their foot soldiers, they could do much worse than copying classical short swords.
Best,
F