Kobra compared to ancient swords for self defence

Eikerværing

Eikerværing

Joined
May 30, 2002
Messages
374
Hi everybody!

I am new to this forum.

I wish to buy a khukuri and I need some help to pick one. I practice martial arts and I would like a khukuri for training purposes. But I would like a khukuri that really is the real thing (i.e. that really is efficient in a fight). The Kobra 25 inch looks good since light means quick. However I wonder if the blade is too light to be able to penetrate skin and cut meat deeply. Maybe the 25 inch Sirupati is better? Has anyone done any real tests of these blades (on meat and skin)?

I did some research on internet and it seems that no sword blade ever made in history (Japanese Katanas, Viking swords, Keltic swords, Spanish falcata) were as light as the Kobra. None weighed less than 2,2 pounds. The Japanese katanas were the lightest with this weight but they had a length of 39 inches and compensated for low weight by length (in contrast to the Kobra with 1,5-2 pounds and 25 inches). Some swords were shorter, like the Spanish falcata at 25 inches (the predecessor to the khukuri), but it compensated for that by increasing the weight up to 2,98 pounds. The falcata seems to be from very ancient times when people didn't use efficient armour or shields. Later in the Viking Age swords would be 40 inches and 4,3 pounds because of the shields and armour improvement. It seems the Spanish falcata (and khukuri) corresponds best with the today's unarmoured way of life.

So does anyone of you khukuri people have any idea about how low you can go on the weight on a 25 inch khukuri before it is no longer a real weapon?

Greetings from a Norwegian
 
Bill knows several Bando people who use khukuris, do a search in this forum for bando or martial and you should find some useful threads.

Of course I am forgetting the Gurkha connection. These warriors have carried mostly the mid sizes of the khukuris over the last century to earn their name in history. Search for gurkha in these threads as well.

------------

FWIW, A 20" Sirupati is about half a pound lighter than the Kobra of which you speak. And here is an excerpt from a soldier's recent field report.

"Standing close by my side is your, euuuhh, MY sirupati who is dying to take a fresh breath of cold moutain air. I therefor oblige. Bubba's eyes go from sneaky and mean to "Holy cow, I 've got a problem". Yet Bubba rushes me trying to give me the benefit of an unwanted button hole. A kiss from the (MY) blade on his right arm reminds him 21 stiches later that I get very offended by unwanted tailoring. Bubba is now really upset....and bloody, yet picks up the toothpick from the ground with his other hand and rushes me again. Metal sparks, clinging and toothpick blade neatly broken in 1/2 now rests on the grounds of those peacefull moutains. Bubba jumps sideways to grab a fallen gun, hoping to convince me that I REALLY need a butthon hole in my stomach but doing so for a split second exposes his right calf muscle. Ouch! Siru bites him really hard to the bone and sentence him to stay in the same place until I secure him."

Thread at http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=197877&highlight=afganistan

-------------

Another FWIW; The Chinese straightsword (jian or gim) varies from under 1.5 pounds to up around your 2.2 pounds. Not a slashing weapon, but effective in its own right.
 
Ok, I am a believer now!

Nice story, something for the grandchildren of that soldier.

Greetings and thanks for the help
 
The Kobra 25 inch looks good since light means quick. However I wonder if the blade is too light to be able to penetrate skin and cut meat deeply.
Click to expand...

"Light" is a relative term. My Kobra is about a 1/4 inch thick. That is pretty heavy when compared to most knives, although thin by HI khukuri standards.

n2s
 
Hi Eikervaering:

This sword size would be impractical in the viking age. Most swords of 30-40 inches only ever weighed 2pounds to 3pounds. Shorter sweords often can equal or exceed this weight, as their mass must compensate for their shorter length.

I think you'd be hapy with the recommended siupatis or kobras. If you are larger in stature, I might also suggest the 21" Gelbu Special. They can weigh between 22 and 30 ounces. I feel this is a sturdy and long blade that suits my body type.

Keith
 
Thanks everybody for your words. I have made my choice, it will be a 25 inch Kobra. The story from Afghanistan plus Tom Holt's earlier good words on other posts really convinced me.

To Ferrous Wheel:
I am of normal body stature so I will be happy with the Kobra.

To BruiseLeee:
In the very old days, like 200 BC they used leather clothes and very light wooden shields for armour. Not as strong as the later chain mails and etc.

Here are some adresses:
http://swordforum.com/swords/historical/falcata.html
http://www.deltin.it/swords1.htm

Greetings from Norway
 
Welcome to the Cantina. From what I've heard from master swordsmen, heavy weight swords has several advantages to light weight ones.

Added weight means more inertia to penetrate into flesh, more centrifugal force that stabilizes sword's direction while wielding. Hefty blade is sturdier and more tolerant to off angled hit (or mishit).

But a well skilled swordsman, I've seen only a few so far, gives power to the edge from his body work instead of gained inertia while swinging it. He scarcely mishits to give lateral force on the blade. So he cuts off any extra weight from his sword.
Like a formula-1 racing car, it's made for experts who are capable of such intolerant tool, but more functional within its very limited field.

So you can choose the lightest, thinnest one as far as you're sure not to break it, can reach furthest enough. If you can wield heavier blade as speedy as a light one, choose a heavier one. More strength is needed if you suppose plate armor on your opponent.

Me? I'm a sword-dummy and needs no lighter blades than an unbreakable Ang Khola in any sense.... Master swordsmens' skill is a total mystery to me but I know they have it.

Hope this helps. Have fun with your khukuris!
 
Being an old warrior, I have thought a lot about the situation that the US could find itself. If I get too crippled up it won't make any difference to me anyway. But, for right now what would a fellow have to do to survive even a small invasion. Like a force coming in from Mexico. The bad part of this avenue is they could be a long ways inside our border before they are spotted. Yea, I know the Border Patrol had spotters along the border. They had radars in Pearl Harbor too and no one payed the operator any heed. There is still too much border to watch all at once.

What I am getting at is, what weapons does a guy living out here like me really need to make them work for the ground they get. Not having all the equipment that was available as a marine, I think I would be crazy to try to fight during the day time, unless a ambush situation presented itself. This would still be risky for one man to pull off. I would rather hang tight during the day and give them headaches at night.
If I had to filght one of these guys at night in the dark his chances with a pistol or rifle are not very favorable. How about a 15"AK in the left hand to pary with. The right can handle whatever a man feels he can do damage with. In my case that gives me four choices. I would discount the 15 Siru for this knid of fight because of the light weight. 20" Kobra, or Siru or 18" Siru, even my BAS would have to be considered because of its forward weight makes it a very god weapon.

I better stop here before you all think I've gone mad. If I misspelled here sorry I am not going to edit it.
:D :D :D
 
Welcome to the cantina, Eikervaering! I'm sure you will be quite pleased with your sword-length Khuk! Let us here at the forum know how it works for you. We all love to read others' field tests.

"200 BC they used leather clothes and very light wooden shields for armour" --This all depends on which region of the world to which you are referring. Leather and cloth padded armor was in use up until the 16 or 17th centuries, in certain places, and Bronze armor was used in B.C. by persians, greeks, Scythians, etc. Generally, your societal status and wealth determined your arms and armor.
In Migration age Europe, chainmail was worth many horses, like owning multiple cars. In those days, you'd probably fight in animal skins and a wool tunic, with spear & shield, and helmet or leather cap.

Just my musings on history.

Welcome again!

Keith
 
Hi Eikervaering,
Welcome to the cantina. I don't think you could go wrong with a Kobra or a sirupati. I have a 20" Kobra and it is fully up to the martial arts type use. It also works great for anything else short of real heavy chopping (I have an AK for that). But anything from opening the mail to preparing dinner (samurai chef eat you heart out) it does it all with ease! Again welcome:)
 
Hey, you people are all really helpful here. This is my first forum ever but this one is truly alive. What is "the cantina" by the way? Several of you people use that term.

WrongFriend:
You have some very important points. The Kobra is Formula 1. And a divine swordsman I will never be (I am just a karate-ka not even with black belt). I think I could manage to wield a heavier one fast too, but as just as fast as the Kobra I don't know. I have never seen or tried these khukuris (the drawback of buying online). I must admit you are making me think that maybe I should go for something a bit heavier. But nevertheless I think I will try that Kobra and see how it feels. If I am not good enough for the knife then I can always trade it.
Interesting what you said about the well skilled swordsman giving power to the sword from his body. We use the same principal in karate. The power in a blow begins in the back heel that is planted in the ground a bit behind you. You do not use the sheer arm muscle and weight to gain power. And further on you use a recoil movement in your hip. In fact it is so advanced that I haven't been able to learn it still after 4 years.

Pappy:
Interesting thought you have about the Mexicans invading USA. You are not crazy. Look at this:
http://www.americanpatrol.com/MECHA/AZTLAN.html
http://www.diversityalliance.org/docs/Chang-aztlan.html

Ferrous Wheel:
You are right. My mind was stuck in my history readings on North Western Europe and the way common farmers went to battle.

Bill and hoghead:
Thanks for your welcomes and help.

Greetings from Norway
 
Pappy a few good guys with darkened blades can always do amazing things even against the most modernly armed opponent. Just thinking back to WWII, in the southern Philippines, where most of the men were only armed with kris or barong, and yet made the enemy pay greatly for making the mistake of landing. Like an old Moro said, they would hide in the bushes, and when...:D
 
This thread interests me for 2 reasons. One, I guess I'm probably the Cantina's most vocal supporter of the 25" Kobra. Two, I spent seven years at Oxford studying ancient Greek and Mediterranean military history.

I'm not a martial arts enthusiast; but my experience with the Kobra leads me to say that if I had to fight for my life with an edged weapon, the 25" Kobra would be my first choice, with a lightweight 25" sirupati (about 2lbs max) as my second choice. The long Kobra has perfect balance for both handspeed and accuracy - it's very easy to hit what you're aiming at, instinctively, without having to think. As far as strength and cutting ability is concerned, don't worry about it - the Kobra's edge bevel profile, distal taper and inherent strength derived from its narrow, thick blade make it (a) virtually unbreakable (b) a superbly efficient cutting tool. I sincerely believe that the Kobra is far tougher than, say, a katana or a European medieval sword, by virtue of its construction. I know for a fact that it'll cut 16ga sheet steel, which is roughly the equivalent in strength & thickness of the average piece of medieval armour. Furthermore, because of the Kobra's balance and weight distribution, you can hit very, very hard with it; it's very efficient at transmitting the maximum force from your blow into useful cutting work; more slice per joule, if you like to look at it that way.

From the historical perspective, regarding early European armour; if you think heavy plate armour was a medieval invention, take a trip to the museum in Nafplion, Greece, and stand for ten minutes in front of the suit of Mycenaean (2md millennium BC) bronze plate armor found at Dendra. Take a look at the massive cuirass, pauldrons, tasses &c. Then go back and reread the battle scenes in the Iliad, and look at the symbol for 'suit of armor' in the Linear B script, and ask yourself if Homer was really writing about a precursor of the hoplite armor of the seventh century BC, as so many scholars would have us believe, or whether he might have been remembering other aspects of the old pre-Dorian culture beside boar-tusk helmets...

As for the origins of the concave-bladed sword; the Greeks called it the machaira or kopis (the Spaniards copied it, though they never called it a 'falcata'; that's a modern term, and I don't know why people will insist on using it...) and it was the cutting sword of choice from say 500BC to around 250BC; and it looks mighty like a khukuri to me. Take a look at the 6th and 5th century Athenian vase-paintings that show the machaira in use, and you'll see the basis of their swordsmanship techniques. They work very well indeed using a Kobra...
 
Great Stuff, Tom. We all benefit from your pedigree!

An addendum to Tom's treatise on Khuk ancestors...

I would class any heavy, single bladed 'short' (15-25inch) weapon as a falchion, a class of heavy knife-swords designed for in-close fighting. The cutlass is derived from this category, and I believe the seax, bowie knife, artilleryman's sword, and even the gladius and certain modern butcher knives would also count. Short massive blades in conjunction with a large shield was the norm for mediterranean and north-african cultures for thousands of years. Even the heavy German Katsbalger fits into this class.

Even in the days when pike formations and firearms were dominating, there were many backup weapons carried that were just really heavy knives.

"Kobra is far tougher than, say, a katana or a European medieval sword, by virtue of its construction"---agreed.
The Swords of the battlefield are too specialized to be used outside of that arena, and were not expected to do the job of an axe or knife. That's why the khuks rule! It is a sword and axe in a knife package. (I'm saying that and I'm a sword-guy, if that ain't an endorsement for khuks, I dunno what is).
Khuks are especially cool in the modern age, where a sword might draw undue attention, but a big knife--hey it's still just a knife right?

Keith
 
To Tom Holt:
Thanks for your deep insights. Impressive indeed.
If the 25 Kobra is good enough for Tom Holt then it is good enough for me too because I don't know anything about swords within martial arts either.
The other consideration about energy transfer is interesting. This is definetly above my level of knife knowledge.
Stronger than war blades? Ok. But is there any blade that will perform all purposes just as good? If you make a good allrounder then I guess that is all you have. And not something made for any special task. Right?
Don't worry, the 25 Kobra is still my choice.

One aspect that has been left out from this discussion is the racial varieties in Europe. I am doing a thesis in biology, about human beings in fact. Human racial variation is my side field on a hobby basis. And I know that there are more tall guys in North Europe and more of the smaller guys in South Europe (and it has been so in historical times). How could this have an effect on sword traditions in these different regions?
Has Tom Holt thought about this issue?
People of Northern Europe are lousy in technical skills in sports and they compensate by using raw force. (They always say so on Eurosport and foreign students of South Europe here in Norway tell me the same observation. My previous karate sensei from Malaysia reported the same thing.) People of South Europe on the other hand have much better technical skills. This must also have had some impact on sword traditions. Or what do you think Mr. Tom Holt?


Greetings from Norway
 
...and answer thusly:

Length of weapons rarely seems to be tied to stature. It is true in the theater of Europe, say, 100-500 AD that the Romans (south europeans) used short swords (gladius) and the Germanic tribes used some longer swords. But there are holes in this comparison:

1. Take for instance the spear, which is easily manageable by any body type, in lengths from 5ft to 15 ft. Used extensively by the Romans, Germans, and almost any and all races and statures. This was the main weapon used, because swords were rarer than spears in the North, and the sword of the romans was a back-up to the shield and spear combo.

2. By 300-400 AD, most of the roman army was comprised of auxiliaries of Germanic descent, like the Visigoths and Vandals who came from the frontier and wanted to get into the empire to escape the ravaging Huns. So in this case, the Germans fought German in different gear, on different sides of the line. Body type was not a consideration, fighting style was.

"People of Northern Europe are lousy in... South Europe on the other hand..."---dangerous generalization. Are not the Swiss very technical?

Keith
 
Ok, so spears are not dependent on body stature but swords seem to be. Correct? Even if the Germanic tribes had to use Roman military equipment it doesn't necessarily mean that they preferred it...?

Just to make the confusion here total. The Roman Empire did correctly in the end consist of Italians. But at the very beginning the Romans were a Celtic tribe named Latini. Celts are Nordics (North European race with highest intensity in Scandinavia). Over the generations they started relying on slaves and immigrants from the Mediterranean region for low status badly paid work (just like today in USA). Over the generations the Celtic racial element disseapeared because they were outnumbered by the newcomers. Only in the upper rich classes some remnants could be found. So in the beginning of the Roman Empire you had blond Romans and at the later stages you had Italians. Basically the same process as in USA today...

About the Swiss. In Switzerland you have a complete mix between the 3 main races of Europe; Latin, Alpine and Nordic. So from the Swiss expect anything. You can find excellent racial maps at http://www.nordish.com/

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