Well, perhaps I was a bit hasty to bow out. Sounds like there's interesting discussion to be had here.
But first-
Again, I'd like to stress that my earlier post was directed squarely at Krull, because he mentioned using a blade on coons and possums. (a topic with which I'm intimately familiar.
) In that case, there's no reason to intentionally dull the blade. There
is a reason to sharpen it at a steeper angle or use a stout convex edge. There is a reason to explore using coarser grits to sharpen with. It all depends on how we are defining "sharp". Several folks have mentioned keeping the tip of the blade sharp, and letting the rest of the blade get less so. This is exactly what I have ended up doing after years of using my big bowie, which sounds like exactly the opposite of what Mr. Krull was proposing. (again, unless I was misunderstanding how he's defining "dull".)
If you were going to use that razor as a tool for manipulating another razor and an armored man holding it, then yes, its being dulled has made it stronger.
No, not in any meaningful practical way. The edge will still shatter and chip out badly if you try whacking anything substantial with it, because there's nothing to support it.
To ignore the wisdom of a 3,000 year old martial arts tradition is not a choice I would make.
I do not know of any 3000 year old martial tradition specifically for straight razors and meat cleavers.
Remember these people were poor and could not afford an array of weapons suited for each purpose.
There was, in Europe, a common practice of owning two blades and one hilt.
The lighter blade for peacetime carry, and the heavier blade for war.
Who exactly are we talking about, here? I recall reading somewhere that even a tanto cost enough gold to feed a small family with rice for a year. Perhaps someone in Europe had a hilt with exchangeable blades, but I've never heard it being anything resembling a "common practice". This sounds especially strange when you consider that the vast majority of European swords had their hilts permanently attached, via peened pommels, leather grip wraps, etc.
Regarding "halfswording": I am just beginning further study into WMA myself, but I've recently seen several pertinent threads over on swordforums. I can't find the one I was looking for, but there's much of the same info in this thread:
Halfswording & sharpness
The pictures that don't picture the fighters in harness tend not to picture gloves, either.
Many believe that this was just a simplification on the part of the artists, since gloves are actually mentioned in the texts.
Can you grab your swords by their blades with bare (or even gloved) hands?
Yes. (though I currently only have one windlass sword, as I haven't made the time to make a proper one for myself) The edge in the forte is sharpened differently than the edge near the tip. In some cases on swords specifically meant for use against harness, there was actually a blunted region for the hand. However, halfswording is still possible with a sharp sword.
I encourage you to try this yourself if you haven't already. Take a swing at a water-filled milk jug and see what happens and remember that that plastic is somewhat tougher than skin.
Yeah, objects and skin can still be cleaved if you make a good swing, and the target is fairly solid, or has bone directly underneath to act as a cutting board. But if the entire edge were dull, many of the smaller moves shown in those same manuals would be completely ineffective.
I must disagree that plastic milk jugs are tougher than skin. It's possible to "cut" a jug with an edge that would completely inadequate against a coon or possum; I can only assume human skin (and clothing) would be the same or tougher. Perhaps you should repeat this test and wrap the jug with some heavy clothing or leather. I'd be interesting in hearing how it goes.
Regardless, it's now dead dull wherever it made contact and it's going to take a lot of sharpening to get it back to where it was. The one that was already dull? Still dull. It's not going to get any duller. Not much maintenance required, unless I want it sharp again.
At least with my big bowie, I can restore a horribly damaged edge (from accidental hits against steel and concrete) in a matter of minutes. The damage incurred from mildly whacking a trash can should be easy to remove in a matter of seconds. Your stance seems to be that "it will end up dull, so why not start out that way?" My stance is why not start out sharp? At least it will help you until it does become dull. What if our troops decided it would be better to carry empty rifles, since they'll run out of ammo anyway? Also, I'm not really sure what relevance the trash can bit has here; when fighting in harness it's generally accepted that the edge is useless anyway.
You see exaggerated fortes on some weapons from other cultures as well; whether they were for parrying with the edge, choking up all the way onto the blade itself, or both, depends on who you ask. In some traditions there are examples of intentionally dulling the lower half of the edge specifically for parrying, so I'd say both.
I can easily agree with your general thoughts here, Dave. It just sounds like a difference in our terminology again. I'm trying to keep the ideas of edge geometry and sharpness separated here. You mention intentional dulling, when in fact it was often a greatly reinforced edge that was not sharpened. I maintain that there is a difference. If the forte were ground just like a straight razor and then "intentionally dulled" by cutting some rope, would it stand up to a botched parry? That's really all I'm trying to get at here.
I have a feeling if we were all having this discussion face to face, we'd end up agreeing with eachother for the most part. And do some test cutting for fun afterwards. :thumbup:
