Could the Buster Sword be used in combat?

MadassAlex

...sucker.

Damn!

Saigyouji

Is there any evidence to suggest that sword-breakers actually worked for their intended purpose?

MadassAlex

Depends on what they were "intended" to do. I find it unlikely that they actually broke swords literally, but they were probably good at catching and manipulating enemy weapons. The medieval use of the word "break" is a bit less literal than its modern use, too; one could use it to mean "defeat". So the "sword-breaker" can be interpreted as "sword-defeater". 

Formaldehyde

Would a good sword even be brittle enough to outright break?

MadassAlex

Never say never. A sword might weaken over time or bend to its breaking point, and being entirely confident that your sword won't break is a good way to fuck up your chances in combat. Having at least one additional weapon at one's disposal was considered necessary, the same way a modern soldier always carries a sidearm. Even the best modern firearm might jam or otherwise fail for some reason, just like a sword might break under the wrong conditions.

That said, some well cared-for swords lasted one hell of a long time, even when used regularly in combat. But the only immortal sword is the one never used in combat, since even sharpening a sword removes a tiny amount of steel from its edge. Eventually, even the best sword needs its blade replaced, even if it's after a lot of battles. While violence was in general more common in medieval Europe than in the modern West, though, it still wasn't an everyday thing, even for a warrior. A knight, man-at-arms, Viking warrior, whatever, might only use their weapons once in a span of weeks, even in a general context of high violence. As always, the role of a warrior is just as much to deter violence as it is to actually engage the enemy. 

Formaldehyde

...sucker.

MadassAlex

Motherfucker.

Crimson

Alex. Fire Emblem Weapon Triangle.

Go.

Super Lazuli

Motherfucker.

You realize you could simply not reply.

Or I could just claim that polearms are better than swords in every way and watch you rant, whatever works for you, mayn.

All Nines

I'm pretty sure Alex is joking.

Super Lazuli

I'm pretty sure I am also joking.

All Nines

Ah, okay. It's hard to tell, sometimes.

MadassAlex

Alex. Fire Emblem Weapon Triangle.

Go.

Vaguely accurate under some circumstances. 

Polearms are generally better battlefield weapons than swords, barring greatswords and other kinds of battlefield designation longswords, or cavalry swords used after a lance has been disposed of. That said, they're usually better than axes for the same reason, and then you have weapons like the halberd and poleaxe, which combine the two and obsoleted standard hand axes except for those who preferred them for cavalry work. 

A sword generally beats out a hand axe due to range and the balance aspects of a sword. Remember my diagram stuff on the first page of this thread? You could consider an axe to be made of only points A and B with the same circular energy, but without the freefloating mass along the line BC. This means an axe works entirely on circular energy, damaging its recovery capacities while gaining a considerable impact force advantage. This prevents an axe from posing a threat as a stationary object, though, so you can't use it as a weapon of deterrence to defend yourself with. In short, an axe becomes spent much more easily than a sword, because a sword can transition into and out of thrusts for both practical and deterrent purposes. Even an axe with a thrusting spike isn't much of a deterrent because of its top-weight, making it slower and more cumbersome to thrust with. 

A hand axe beating a spear or another polearm is a matter of defeating a thrust with a strike, using impact force to bat the comparatively weaker thrusting energy aside. True enough, thrusts are generally weak against beats and other techniques that seek to manipulate the enemy's weapon directly. 

So, yes, vaguely accurate for a given assumption of techniques used and weapon types equipped.