Khukuri vs. saber

D

David Poston

Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
22
Just a question I'd like to throw out there . . .

What are the advantages and disadvantages to a recurved blade like a khukuri and a regular curved blade like a saber? If khukuris are so effective, why didn't people make their sabers recurved also? Does it have something to do with balance on longer weapons? In other words, the longer the weapon is, the recurve idea becomes less feasible?
 
David, they are two different blades with different origins and intended uses. A saber is almost always a cavalry weapon, long, stiff-spined, and intended for one fast cut, from horseback.
Most, but not all, Khukuris were originally agricultural in origin even though the style of blade is evolved from a weapon brought down the Himalayas by Alexander's troops. They found daily use in the fields and were on hand when weapons were needed, and filled the requirement well. When in use by long-term military, they were modified to more martial pursuits (hanshees as armor piercers, and for reach over a shield or buckler - some Nepali arm shields have blades and spikes to help prevent such an approach). They don't necessarily lose advantage with additional length, depending on intended use. The 30" Kobra and Sirupati models are not the most convenient for everyday carry, but are great for clearing thornbush, where the extra reach is appreciated.
 
From the Gallery page at Oriental-Arms. Again, sabers and yataghans and the like were cavalry weapons.

http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/OA/items/000178.html

Khukuris, and the weapons they evolved from, were used by foot soldiers. The British, in their wars in India, tried to use the saber against the Khukuri. Didn't come out very well, as many wounded officers testified on return home. The Khukuris were used by Gorkhas, on contract to the Indian army, who grew up running in places you couldn't walk a horse. Bad match-up.
 
Originally posted by Walosi
. A saber is almost always a cavalry weapon, long, stiff-spined, and intended for one fast cut, from horseback.
Click to expand...

I had thought that sabers wanted to have flexibility.. enough so they would flex instead of snap. Is that right?

I'm not as educated in the field of ancient arms as some of you are.. but I can remember seeing especially Greek and perhaps Roman and Egyptian weapons that are similiar in style to the khukri. I assume they were for light infantry.

In the modern armies (like when the brits fought the gorkhas) there are a lot of various infantry sabers.. I'd say the major reason the west favored the saber and the peoples of nepal/india favored the khukri is just that it is what they were used to historicly.

Personly, I'd take a European saber in a straightup fight against a khukri. (actually, I'd take a colt .45)
 
It is in the best interest of the rider to have a sword that would not catch on the enemy and drag the rider down with his slain enemy, so having a recurve that would hook into the enemy is not a good idea.
 
"If khukuris are so effective, why didn't people make their sabers recurved also?"

Some Peoples did infact, along with about any other shape you can imagine. Many special purpose blade styles from India defy verbal description. There are 'light' swords that have a sine-wave shaped blade. Thought to be a 'best of all possible worlds' design. The shape from the riccasso out to the midpoint is somewhat recurved to allow a little more leverage/angle in chopping and also for cuts that draw through the target. The target is literally fed into and through the sweetspot of the recurve by a drawing motion, forcing a much deeper cut than obtainable with a straight blade. Then from the midpoint to the tip, the blade has an slight upsweep to faciltate slashing. Overall the entire shape still maintains enough straightness and semetry that an effective thrust/stab can be achieved. It doesn't take too much recurve/sweep in a blade to make a notable difference in it's behavior and feel.
 
I suppose I remember seeing a variety of sabers (used both on horseback and on foot) that have a recurved design similar to a khukuri, like in the movie "The Mummy Returns." For those that have seen the movie, I'm referring to the short saber-like weapon that the tattooed leader-of-those-who-guarded-the-forbidden-city (I can't recall his name, but he was one of the "good guys") fought with. You can see him fighting with it up close against the big African guy, one of the "bad guys." What is the name of that sword, by the way?

What I'm wondering about is which design can chop and slash better--the forward curve or the backward curve design. Maybe the forward-curved khukuri has the edge as a chopper, but a backward-curved saber has the edge for slicing into a target?
 
I THINK I would take a khuk over a saber... just about any day on foot (if the saber gets a horsey, I get a .45). The saber might have the reach, but once you're inside that, he's toast. Plus I daresay that if you caught the saber just right, you could cut it in half with a good blow from a khuk :D

Alan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top