Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

batotit t1_j29dhhj wrote

There are officers who not only wore the sword but of course, trained with it until they were considered proficient with the weapon (especially the cavalry), and there are battles like Guilford Courthouse where bloody hand-to-hand combat with bayonets, swords, and axes became the deciding factor.
But the truth is, by the time America gained its independence in 1776, swords were already obsolete. Maybe there are swordsmen at the time but they are never "notable" because their weapons are not useful anymore on the battlefield.
Do you remember any Japanese swordsmen in world war 2? At the time they joined the war, their armies still have lots of people known as "Master swordmen" but they are not "notable" because, at the end of the day, the sword is not a factor in the war.

36

ThoDanII t1_j2a0fga wrote

>But the truth is, by the time America gained its independence in 1776, swords were already obsolete. Maybe there are swordsmen at the time but they are never "notable" because their weapons are not useful anymore on the battlefield.

The participants in the napoleonic wars would not agree

24

wizenedfool t1_j29s2sf wrote

Obviously in no way “notable” as you say. But this comment does just make me think what an absolute bummer it would have been to be the poor soldier that ends up stumbling into one of these “masters” in the jungle and having to fight hand-to-hand.

17

JethroFire t1_j29ubdp wrote

Not a problem if you shoot him first.

12

wizenedfool t1_j2a3716 wrote

I mean it isn’t as tho these Japanese soldiers didn’t also have guns to use outside hand to hand range…

2

JethroFire t1_j2a6tzi wrote

Right, but him being described as a master swordsman assumes that he is primarily armed with a sword and a pistol.

1

stiffgordons t1_j2a4lj4 wrote

They weren’t obsolete, they had a role as a cavalry weapon in circumstances where respective military traditions, demographics and geography permitted the effective use of cavalry at scale.

Hence why cavalry armed with swords were often decisive in Europe well into the 19th century.

14

CumfartablyNumb t1_j2aax7p wrote

I've seen movies that depict Japanese officers leading banzai charges with their swords drawn. A quick glance at the wiki shows it was generally a last ditch effort before the Japanese lines fell, and it was not very effective against an organized US force.

Though apparently there was some success against poorly equipped Chinese.

3

BudgetMattDamon t1_j2a0zw6 wrote

It boils down pretty simply: you have to undergo a lot of intensive training (years IIRC) with the sword to be able to kill effectively. A gun requires zero training to use, and relatively little to become passable with. Plus you can kill way more people in less time.

Swords are still way cooler.

−5

Sinfullyvannila t1_j2c37kd wrote

It really depends on the gun. That's probably the case for a good striker fired handgun if there is already a bullet in the chamber or a pump action or break loaded shotgun. But otherwise, military rifles usually have less obvious slide operations and/or safeties. Double-action handguns of all kinds have a much heavier trigger pull than most people expect and it's not obvious whether a revolver is single, or double action.

Even with something as popular as a 1911, even if someone knew how to operate the slide, they probably wouldn't recognize the manual safety they don't know you also have to squeeze the lever on the back of the grip to engage the trigger.

2