What Kind Of Sword Does Deathstroke Use?

i think it is a broadsword but i'm not sure

It's custom. If you want a more detailed explanation, it really depends because he's had a lot of swords with a variety of designs. I've even seen him use weapons with blades similar to the Gladius (don't have a scan, sorry), broadsword, and others.

His sword tends to change with the artist, or, when Liefeld was in charge, change with the panel.

Probably changes according to the situation he'll be facing. He picks the blade for the task. A machete for a jungle mission, etc.

The pointy kind?

@KnightRise said:

His sword tends to change with the artist, or, when Liefeld was in charge, change with the panel.

QFT. Seen shots of it shifting between some weird rapier / cutlass crossbreed to a broadsword. Ugh.

@longbowhunter said:

The pointy kind?

Broadswords aren't pointy. It's also a relatively blunt blade.

Fun fact :P

His sword tends to change with the artist, or, when Liefeld was in charge, change with the panel.

@JediXMan said:

@KnightRise said:

His sword tends to change with the artist, or, when Liefeld was in charge, change with the panel.

QFT. Seen shots of it shifting between some weird rapier / cutlass crossbreed to a broadsword. Ugh.

Its not just that Rob Liefeld is a bad artist, he's also a bad technical artist. He has no depth or scale, and panel-to-panel consistency doesn't exist to him.

@KnightRise said:

His sword tends to change with the artist, or, when Liefeld was in charge, change with the panel.

You get a gold star, sir.

@JediXMan said:

Broadswords aren't pointy. It's also a relatively blunt blade.

False. Broadswords (which in itself is a rather misleading term as it covers a whole range of blades) were cutting and chopping blades, they were not blunt.

its sharp it cuts through anythjng

@Crom-Cruach said:

@JediXMan said:

Broadswords aren't pointy. It's also a relatively blunt blade.

False. Broadswords (which in itself is a rather misleading term as it covers a whole range of blades) were cutting and chopping blades, they were not blunt.

Depends on the broadsword (which you kinda concede to, but still). Many broadswords were rather blunt, at least compared to other swords the blades were meant for blade-on-shield, armor, or other sword. Such a thing will weaken the integrity of the blade significantly, and therefore it was mostly used to damage the person beneath the chain mail.

Longswords were typically sharper than broadswords. Not to say that broadswords are completely blunt. All I'm saying is that they were not as sharp as others, specifically due to the reason I stated above.

PS: Could be mixing the two.

@JediXMan said:

Depends on the broadsword (which you kinda concede to, but still). Many broadswords were rather blunt, at least compared to other swords the blades were meant for blade-on-shield, armor, or other sword. Such a thing will weaken the integrity of the blade significantly, and therefore it was mostly used to damage the person beneath the chain mail.

That's not true, broadsword is just a general term that was use to describe blades with a bigger blade then the "median" blade of an era. Nothing more. Historically speaking, broadsword was first equated with two-handed swords which were used a long cutting blades. Then as blades evolved it came to be associated with one handed military edges (such as the basket-hilt sword) that were to be used for but cutting and chopping as well a trusting compared to the rapier and it's descendant the backsword. This was a sword that was mainly used for cutting and sharpness was paramount as it was one of the later stages of evolution of cutting swords at a time when armor was slowly on the way out (firearms ruining the fun for everyone)

There is no accuracy to saying that they were blunter. They were just wider, however this could also mean a better cut because even against armor a diamond shaped double edge that was wider would mean an easier cut because of the physics of force versus separation. this is were we get true stories of men being split from head to stem. Furthermore effective swordsmanship of a on-handed blade (whether one termed broadsword or arming sword or another) was never sword on shield or sword on sword. In fact doing so was understood to be stupid. These things would damage the blade to no purpose, true medieval and post medieval swordsmanship taught warriors to use footwork and technique to go around a shield and attack weak points in armor, not try and beat them with force. Blunt weapons such as maces, flails and warpicks were used for that as well as the far more crushing axes.

Blades made to defeat armor were not made to be blunter, they were either made to have a different cut or to also provide trusting and needle point.

See here a picture from a medieval german school manual use to teach how to get around a targe (buckler), both warriors have the targes and the second "panel" is a depiction of the follow through stab:

It's a custom made two handed Broadsword right?