Leaf Blade vs Straight Blade

Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
8
I'm focusing on swords that are dual edged and symmetrical for the purposes of this discussion, so katanas, machetes, etc. are not on topic.

What advantages would you say a leaf bladed sword has over a straight blade and vice versa?

Leaf Blade
http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr331/palmerproperties/100_5764.jpg

Straight Blade
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b115/crfields/swords/IMGP3655.jpg

Assume both swords are of equal length and sharpness. If I am not using appropriate sword vernacular I apologize, as I'm not all that familiar with specific weapon terminology.
 
Leaf shaped is better for hacking and slashing because of it's geometry.

Straight is better for stabbing.

Straight swords can be made longer and lighter than a leaf shaped blade because it doesn't need the extra mass to retain its leaf shape.
 
For starters, the parallel blade has a greater potential for a center of balance closer to the handle.
Yes, but a leaf shaped blade like the one in OP's post is going to be mainly used for slashing and hacking, almost like an axe, so you want it to be blade heavy to maximize that function. For a weapon like a longsword, though, you definitely don't want it to be too blade heavy because it would make management during thrusts a bit harder.
 
What daily uses are you hoping to get out of the sword ??? :D

Heh, I'm not planning on using either, this was just spurred on by a discussion I was having with a friend of mine the other day regarding the early prevalence of the leaf blade shape and it's eventual seemingly uniform replacement with the straight blade.

I realize the leaf blade was produced during the bronze age and that bronze is easier to shape than iron, so it makes sense, I was just curious as to the benefits of both types.


Leaf shaped is better for hacking and slashing because of it's geometry.

Straight is better for stabbing.

Straight swords can be made longer and lighter than a leaf shaped blade because it doesn't need the extra mass to retain its leaf shape.

Logical, but doesn't the leaf shape just look so much cooler? :)

Yes, but a leaf shaped blade like the one in OP's post is going to be mainly used for slashing and hacking, almost like an axe, so you want it to be blade heavy to maximize that function. For a weapon like a longsword, though, you definitely don't want it to be too blade heavy because it would make management during thrusts a bit harder.

Useful information, thank you.
 
The obvious answer is that curved blades slash and hack better than straight blades. The origin is a bit more complex.

The early development of the leaf blade shape was to a good part a function of shaping a rough billet of steel/bronze/copper into a sword. The area near the handle would need to be thicker to avoid bending and breaking. The area in the front of the blade should be thinner to allow better cutting and penetration. Thus, as the billet was beat out to thin the forward area, it became wider than the thicker ricasso area. A little later on the straight sword was easier to shape and became the norm. Making the straight sword curved allowed for better slashing, and the many sabre style blades evolved.

The shape of the "mountain man skinner" came about the same way. Smiths with limited skills and equipment beat out a knife from a straight bar of steel. We all know what happens to the tip when the bevels are forged on a straight bar . The tip rises in a banana curve. Later, the shape of the "skinner" was assumed to be the best shape for such knives because all the old ones were shaped that way. A drop point would skin as well in most circumstances.
 
the leaf blade would be better for close combat scenarios, like in the house or basement, or in a prison cell. its short, fast, and very deadly in the right hands, but for some people it is to small. the straight balde is for more of an open area, like a field, or courtroom, or whatever you might think of. its long for more range, but its a little slow on the swing, the heavier weight gives it more of a momentous hit, causing more damage than the leaf blade. so in essence the answer comes down to where you are located.
 
that would most likely be the long, straight balde because its longer and has more room to maneuver past the shield
 
the leaf blade would be better for close combat scenarios, like in the house or basement, or in a prison cell. its short, fast, and very deadly in the right hands, but for some people it is to small. the straight balde is for more of an open area, like a field, or courtroom, or whatever you might think of. its long for more range, but its a little slow on the swing, the heavier weight gives it more of a momentous hit, causing more damage than the leaf blade. so in essence the answer comes down to where you are located.

I appreciate your reply, but in the initial post I said to assume both blades are of equal length and sharpness, purposely doing so to negate the "straight blade reach advantage," part of the discussion. As what I'm interested in is how the different shapes benefit or hinder the weapon, not which is typically longer.
 
Leaf blades concentrate forward mass, increasing cutting potential. However, for this very reason, this makes them less suitable for swords with long blades since the amount of "swell" that can be added without making the sword cumbersome deceases more and more the longer the blade becomes. Hence why very long swords usually taper towards the point rather than doing the opposite (as leaf blades do). This can be overcome to a certain degree with distal taper, thinning the blade rather than narrowing it as you approach the point, but there's only so far that this can be done. When thinned and broadened you still have increased cutting ability due to the mass being concentrated behind the cutting edge rather than to the sides. :)
 
Only problem with talking length is that the OP specifically said to assume both swords are of equal length. Which means, as FortyTwoBlades just pointed out, that we're talking short swords. Gladius vs Celtic/Greek sword, for instance, but both made with identical materials.

Personally, I prefer a leaf blade. Better slashing power and I like the balance, still leaves a nice big hole on a stab (better than a waki, for instance). Plus, leaf blades just have an undeniable aesthetic appeal.
 
Both of those weapons come from a time in which armor was used. Both of these weapons were purpose engineered for those circumstances; their designs driven by armor technology. A leaf shaped blade would carry more mass at the end -- as others here pointed out -- which would make it better for splitting helmets and attacking the exposed parts of shield arms and legs. A straight blade with geometry similar to the one you posted would have a more rigid structure and be balanced closer to the hilt -- again, as others have pointed out - and this balance would make it easier to target gaps in plate and pierce through.

Take away the armor factor and both blade designs lose the context for which they were built.
 
One practical application for leaf blades is that with repeated use (i.e., nicks & dings in the edge) they will last longer since they're generally broader at the area where most of this damage would occur. I have to think in the age of bronze, this would be just as big a reason for making leaf blades as any other reason. (I know that the Celts and Chinese cast their bronze swords- not forged, and assumed most other cultures did the same.) And they won't look funny as soon from repeated sharpening since they're all curves. Sharpening a 2mm deep nick out of a perfectly straight edge will leave a very noticeable scallop that can't be blended as easily.

But when it comes down to performance, and choosing between modern reproductions, I would have to say that depends far more on the maker's overall knowledge about balance, construction, edge geometry, heat treatment, etc. When you buy a sword you're getting the whole package. I would pick a well made leaf blade with good handling dynamics over a clunky straight blade, and vice versa.
 
Very interesting and informative replies FortyTwoBlades, crimsonfalcon07, SeaxyBeast, and the possum. Thanks very much.
 
No problem, dude! Swords are pretty complex blades in terms of the criteria they try to balance, and you raised a very good question!
 
Ok look here is the breakdown. A leaf blade is specifically designed to be used in phalanx. That is sword and board front lines action. The use of it requires snapping motions with the arm creating tremendous force in the rotation. A leaf blade can be thrust past a shield and with a quick elbow drop drive the blade through armor and bone. This is also the reason trench knives where designed to be very blade heavy.
A straight bladed sword of equal length is a long dagger as it is less than 20 inches ( blade length). It is highly maneuverable but will mostly be a defensive or stabbing weapon thus not good for a shield.
 
So I am curious, why bring up an eight year old thread? The original poster may not have been on this board in years. I am curious also as to where you are deriving your information? So far as I have read the main weapon of the hoplite was the spear with the xiphos mostly being reserved for mop up duty. Although they moved to the maniple rather than the phalanx, the Romans also moved from the leaf shaped Mainz to the straight edged Pompeii gladius which seems odd if the leaf shaped blade was the more effective design for attacking a shield bearing foe. I can always learn new things, however, so I would be interested in reviewing your sources.
 
The leaf shape was ultimately left behind because it was easier to manufacture straight blades. The romans where all about mass production which is why the blades where designed to detach from the hilt by 3-5 rivets. This is easy when they are bronze and poured out in 10 blade rows. Thus choose a effective shape and go. However iron is not as forgiving when cast (it tends to develop too much carbon and become brittle) thus the departure to creating bars of iron then just cut out what you need, run it over a grinding stone to make sharp, and rivet in.
As for why i brought it up. Eh didn't look at the dates just saw that there was very little on the leaf blade but alot on the straight sword.
Most of my info is derived from research on alexander the great and research on hopolite soldiers as well as a look into roman foundry work.
The understanding of function came from actual use in live steel combat through the E.C.S.
None of this makes me a expert by any means as i hold no doctoral or masters on the subject.
 
Back
Top