Hello. Question on self-defense khus and katans

[Don Nelson]

Originally posted by Walking Man
Don, you hit the nail on the head, BUT I did mention something about comparing appropriate sizes also. What I was really asking, I guess, is: Are the lightest kukris quick enough (and maybe long enough) to be able to keep up with a Katana? Well, the answer seems to be a resounding NO, which is what I expected, but how about compared to a similarly sized English or Viking or Roman (or whatever) sword?

Also, To me the shape does not appear (to me) to lend itself well to any type of swordplay, does any one else have thoughts on this?

In the latter scenario it would come down to who ever was the better fighter -- or the one who was luckiest. From my readings of historical references to actual sword combat, who ever gets cut first begins a very rapid descent down a very slippery slope, especially with weapons like the ones you mention in these scenarios.

The khuk's shape does put it at a disadvantage in the stereotypical attack - parry - counter-attack, and it's single cutting edge does deprive it of some tactical flexibility.

However, the Khuk's ability to inflict such incredibly shearing cutting strikes for its size make it an incredibly formidable weapon.

One thing Hollywood and theatrical productions have done is to give a very sanitized portrayal of "large blade" combat, ie, a superficial scratch to the good guy (who scarcely bleeds) followed by a relatively clean thrust to the bad guy's chest, who gasps, curses, and then collapses. Fade out to next scene.

In the real world we are talking about severing limbs or removing entire muscle groups with a single blow, and you can imagine how quickly it goes down hill for the injured party from that point on.

Don

 

[Walking Man]

Thanks everyone.
Questions have been answered to my satifaction.
(but don't let that stop you from jumping in)