The Shroud on 5/12/2008 at 21:31
Beleg, my point was that you'd need to be knowledgeable about all short blades and short sword fighting styles in the world if you're going to assert categorical claims about all short swords. The fact is, short swords existed. We know this without a doubt. And there's a reason they existed. Debating whether they should have been invented or were worthwhile weapons in hindsight seems rather a moot issue.
Aside from that, it has been stated repeatedly that Garrett is not concerned with frontal combat against armed opponents. He knows he won't last long in a sword fight in the first place. Constantine's sword is essentially an assassin's weapon intended for sneak attacks (hence its magical stealth properties). Why not a dagger instead? I really don't know. If you're behind someone, a stab with a dagger is about as good as a thrust with a sword (provided your victim can be stabbed in a vital area). A short sword can thrust deeper than a dagger though.
There are all sorts of clear drawbacks to Garrett carrying a longsword, and not many benefits that are relevant to him. Relevant to a soldier, yes. But not to someone whose entire objective is to avoid combat. What good is a fighting weapon to someone with no skill in a fight? That's like giving a longbow to Conan. Garrett is better off with a weapon that, at the very least, does not hinder his thieving activities.
Now, let's compare:
Longsword - Benefits
Heavier striking power
Better range in combat
Better defense against armed opponents
Longsword - Drawbacks
Cumbersome to mobility/athletics/stealth
Not usable in close-quarters
Requires skill to wield effectively
Short sword - Benefits
Portable
Effective in tight spaces
Requires less skill to wield
Short sword - Drawbacks
Less striking power
Less range in combat
Less effective defense against armed opponents
If I were a soldier or a guard, I'd take the longsword. If I were a thief, I'd take the short sword. It's really a no-brainer.
Beleg Cúthalion on 6/12/2008 at 09:12
Do what you want. What I wanted to say is that a short sword won't have the significant advantage of being better transportable while being rendered practically useless as a sword at the same time. Of course there are shorter swords all over the world and I have explained when they make sense (secondary weapons for spearmen, practise weapons for farmers, left aside weapons like the gladius which was short but not a short sword at the time etc.) but you have to show me tangible evidence for such a weapon being the primary one in a context with longer blades - left aside that we're talking about a European context in Thief anyway. You'll always have a disadvantage with a shorter blade even if there is, say, Japanese literature pointing out how brave such a warrior would be. The properties of the blades you listed (esp. the short swords) are quite away from reality. You don't need more or less skill for one sword type (in fact you have to be more skilled for a shorter sword if you want to win) and it's not only less striking power, less range etc., it's simply that you hardly have any chance to strike or defend yourself. Just find someone, take two sticks and simulate some kind of fighting situation. Things like that are always very blurry if you have no training, but you get the basic idea of what it is like to have a shorter weapon. You wouldn't take a shorter one if you wanted to fight, but if not, why take it at all? And how many close-quarter combats are you planning? A dagger would be enough I guess IF something like that would happen.
And with long swords I'm referring to one-and-a-half-handed swords (at least in German they're historically called "Langes Schwert") which became popular with the rise of better (plate) armour at the end of the 13th as secondary weapons on horseback. Using them outside the "armour context" (or training/trial & ordeal) would be not correct as well. Heck, I just don't think we have to invent something if it's not necessary. I'd vote for the sword (i.e. Constantine's) and a short recurve (horse) bow. That would be a stretch as well, strictly speaking, but at least it would be existent.
The Shroud on 6/12/2008 at 18:09
Quote Posted by The Shroud
Aside from that, it has been stated repeatedly that Garrett is not concerned with frontal combat against armed opponents. He knows he won't last long in a sword fight in the first place. Constantine's sword is essentially an assassin's weapon intended for sneak attacks (hence its magical stealth properties). Why not a dagger instead? I really don't know. If you're behind someone, a stab with a dagger is about as good as a thrust with a sword (provided your victim can be stabbed in a vital area). A short sword can thrust deeper than a dagger though.
There are all sorts of clear drawbacks to Garrett carrying a longsword, and not many benefits that are relevant to him. Relevant to a
soldier, yes. But not to someone whose entire objective is to avoid combat. What good is a fighting weapon to someone with no skill in a fight? That's like giving a longbow to Conan. Garrett is better off with a weapon that, at the very least, does not
hinder his thieving activities.
Beleg, you have not addressed any of the above. You've ignored the central argument and repeated the same points you've already made. You are entirely focused on combat. Do you have anything to say regarding my above statements?
Beleg Cúthalion on 6/12/2008 at 20:50
I've adressed the other-weapons-in-the-world thing, I've adressed the Constantine's dagger issue and stated that I'd prefer the real sword instead and finally I've made clear somewhere above that in general I'd prefer a dagger to a "short sword" because of the previously listed arguments.
Do you really think I have adressed nothing of it? :weird:
The Shroud on 7/12/2008 at 17:36
I do remember you stating that you'd prefer a dagger to a short sword some ways back in this discussion, but other than that your focus has been on combat. It seems as if we're not really in the same debate. We are each talking about two different issues and while I don't necessarily disagree with all your points regarding European sword fighting, I don't see you addressing the main argument, which is summed up in my last post.
Beleg Cúthalion on 7/12/2008 at 17:43
I prefer a dagger to a short sword when it's about sneaking in buildings and all that, but since the plot takes place in larger locations after you have found The Sword, I think we can afford a normal one. Plus, since Garrett doesn't need Constantines sword within the Mage Towers, the Hammerite Temple or in the Opera, he can simply leave it at home and just take it with him for the enclosed section or the Lost City.
But well, about combat or not, why would you take (short) sword with you if not for combat? Unless you want to cut down bushes (or monsters maybe) there is not a lot left to do with it, that's why I referred to usual combat situations most of the time.
The Shroud on 8/12/2008 at 08:55
Garrett will encounter monsters of various sorts in the walled-off section of the Olde Quarter, the Lost City, the cathedral, beneath Constantine's mansion, in the besieged Hammerite temple, and in the Maw of Chaos. It's true that he'll be leaving his sword (as well as his bow and arrows) at home when he goes undercover into the Hammerite temple. Other than that, he'll have it with him.
He'll be using his sword for sneak attacks most of the time. The only cases where he'll actually be fighting with it will be against certain unarmed monsters. Haunts, craymen, apemen, and mantis-beasts can all handle themselves pretty well in close combat so Garrett will attempt to backstab them or shoot them from range. And burricks he will try to avoid altogether.
The difference between a short sword and a dagger is that a dagger has to be used up close, while a short sword does at least have some length to its blade - enough to hack at a lunging zombie, slash at an apparition, strike at a fire elemental without getting one's hand singed in the process, or thrust into a spider without getting bitten. It's a middle-ground weapon that is short enough not to be an inconvenience to thieving but long enough to be useful in an emergency.
I know I wouldn't want to battle zombies, apparitions, fire elementals, and spiders with a dagger. I'm sure Garrett wouldn't either. Or you, for that matter. Am I right?
Meanwhile, let's see how the poll is doing...
Update, as of the 45th voter:
Lockpicks: 45 (100%)
Blackjack: 44 (98%)
Rope arrow: 43 (98%)
Water arrows: 43 (96%)
Flash bombs: 42 (93%)
Broadhead arrows: 41 (91%)
Fire arrows: 39 (87%)
Constantine's sword: 38 (84%)
Compass: 37 (82%)
Holy water: 28 (62%)
Gas arrows: 21 (47%)
Noisemaker arrows: 20 (44%)
Moss arrows: 19 (42%)
Healing potions: 15 (33%)
Gas mines: 14 (31%)
Breath potions: 13 (29%)
Explosive mines: 11 (24%)
Speed potions: 11 (24%)
Beleg Cúthalion on 8/12/2008 at 13:54
Sneak attacks with a short sword. I don't know, but it still sounds silly to me. Anyway, none of the monsters live in too narrow corridors or something so there's no need for a weapon with such a questionable purpose like a short sword. And to me it would seem really odd if the mighty sword of Constantine was a miniature one.
The Shroud on 8/12/2008 at 20:23
Heh, actually what sounds silly to me is sneak attacks with a longsword when a shorter blade would work just as well, if not better. As for monsters not residing in tight spaces, there are plenty of cloistered areas in the barricaded section of the Olde Quarter, as well as several narrow corridors and such in the Lost City and the cathedral. There are going to be lots of cases where Garrett will need to be prepared to squeeze through tight passages, climb through windows or tunnels, crawl under things and nestle into hiding places. Even something as basic as moving while crouched or descending a stairway/ramp/slope would be cumbersome with a long scabbard hanging at one's side.
As for "the mighty sword of Constantine", I think you may be mixing in some paradigms from other legends, perhaps Excalibur or something of the like. Although, come to think of it, King Arthur ("Artorius"), reputed to have lived in the early 500's AD, is widely believed to have used a Dark Ages short sword rather than a 12th Century longsword. Moreover, Garrett is not a warrior. A mighty sword isn't really suitable for him.
Another thing is that Constantine is a collector, not a soldier. His sword would be an antique, not a contemporary weapon like the longsword carried by guards in the game.
Something else that occurs to me, which is not terribly relevant but ironic nonetheless, is that the famous "Constantine" from our history is actually from Roman origins, and we all know the Romans used the gladius. The Greeks used the Xophis and Spatha (other types of short swords). These swords ranged from 24-31.5 inches in length.
The use of short swords is extremely prevalent in our history. The purpose of these weapons is not at all "questionable".
Beleg Cúthalion on 9/12/2008 at 08:14
As I said before, shorter swords like the gladius or the slightly longer spatha (late-Roman cavalry weapon and those of the Franks) were no short swords simply because there were no longer ones in the same context. Period. They were just normal swords. Since that you have no disadvantage in combat. And if you want to do sneak attacks with a sword, why not take a dagger all the time? Why do you need sneakily-attacked monsters in cloistered areas to give this short sword a justification?
Ah, do what you want. I believe I've pointed out quite reasonably why a short swords wouldn't make much sense even for a fantasy thief, but if you think you need it nonetheless, go ahead.
