[ SECRET POST #3440 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3440 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 79 secrets from Secret Submission Post #491.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Weren't most of them historically blunt? Especially bigger swords. They were meant to cleave, not slash.

[feotakahari]

Depends on what you're hitting. If you're an armored knight on a horse, and you're hitting other armored knights, you want a sword that's pretty blunt so it can bonk them through the armor. I'm not too familiar with what less armored warriors used, but it seems like it would be sharper.

[fishnchips]

Well... it depends on the type of sword. And the what it was used for. But in general, medieval (and older) swords were often much sharper than a lot of people assume. Some still are quite sharp, depending on the condition they were found it, despite their age.

But I mainly thought, given the topic of the books, that the sword on the cover is Excalibur, the sword that was fabled to cut through steel, so... that would be especially weird.