Western Blades and Fighting Styles

Yeah, and it was Goddard who developed the concept of the liquid-fueled rocket that the Germans copied. But I think Goddard was of German descent. Many of the coolest things are German. They are very Industrial people.

You are right about the damascus/pattern-welded issue amongst modern smiths. They see a "pattern" in damscus, so it must be "pattern-welded". But the reality is that we can x-ray the old swords and see how they`re constructed. While you`re average bladesmith may not draw the distinction, the historian does. This makes sense because modern bladesmiths, skilled as they are, are primarily knifemakers. Oh yeah, and Al Mar got this damascus thing pretty well-entrenched. There is a difference when we`re discussing historic swords. This is readily verifiable in any book on the subject. When talking about modern bladesmithing lingo, it`s different. I have no intrest in pursuing this paricular term in the vernacular of modern bladesmithing, if anyone questions what I have said, go read a book on historic swords. Something by Eward Oakeshot should clear this up right away.

Speaking of getting bogged-down, I feel that sufficient evidence and references have been made available concerning the lineage of the saber as applied to 19th century cavalry. Those who don`t agree cannot be brought around at this point, for those who do the matter is settled. For those who are still undecided, I must suggest personal, unbiased research. I will try to get a list of references listed as promised, just as a way to get information out.

I would like to continue with this thread in another direction before this becomes an East/West pissing match. Unfortunately, it is too easy to become polarized according to personal loyalties and infighting errupts when discussing these issues. I would much rather take this in the direction of actual methodology of weapons in a non-who-got-what-where-first context. There has got to be some more people who are into this stuff who can share some info, or some people with some questions along these lines.

If someone would like to compare/contrast East/West issues, or debate origins or outcomes we can open another thread. I am not neccessarily opposed to these discusions. I just don`t want to get involved in a "HEY! I`m better than you cause I say so!" and "HEY! No you`re not! Look how loud I can YELL!" sort of quagmire.
 
This is verging off-topic, but I want to point out that pattern-welded steel does not consist of layers of high and low carbon steel. The smith may have started out with that, but the carbon migrates during the forging and hammer-welding process and the finished blade has uniform carbon content.

Many of the swords made in Europe as early as the Dark Ages were not pattern-welded; they were making small quantities of crucible steel early on.

I hope it is clear by now the modern cavalry saber is not Mongol in origin. If anybody wants to boost the Mongols, there is evidence that the Japanese katana is descended from Mongol swords.

Again, I recommend netsword.com -- it's a UBB forum just like this one; you'll feel right at home.

-Cougar Allen :{)
 
Jesus, and I thought I got detailed...I am gonna print this and read it at home so I can at least provide intelligent input on Tuesday.

Snick, keep on wrinting and we will all have something to walk away with, but me for off. Gotta go run off that pot of coffee, and why does the bear need a pocket? To keep the rabbit in of course!

 
Thanks for the info. There is no doubt that I am completely ignorant on this subject. However, Everything I have ever read and even the old movies depict iron comming from the east. Aren't there even slightly curved Katana's that date over a 1000 years that could pass for a western saber? I gues the point I was trying to make was that ewven though the final evolution may have happened in the western cultures, did not the blade art come from the eastern cultures? Or did the europeans come up with the exact same styles later on?
 
Snicker,

In another forum some individuals have expressed who there favorite armies are. Specifically stating why say "the Romans would beat the Samurai" or "the Swiss Landsknecht would beat the British Cavalry."

I'm too fond of the pissing contest myself. Briefly, going back to blade designs, the Chinese Kung Fu systems have dozens themselves but one of my former teachers believed that a lot of them were not really used such as the Wolf's Head Cudgel, the Hook Swords, the Nine Dragon Trident, etc.

 
Sorry I missed everybody last night! I`ll be back tonight. I got a lot of work to do at the library today, but I think we can take this in some good directions.

Smoke ol' buddy, if it came down to it, I`ll put the modern U.S. Army up against all challengers, past or present!

Take it easy!

------------------
"One of God`s Prototypes. A powerful mutant, never even considered for mass-production.
Too weird to live. Too tough to die."

 
The record for longest and widest-ranging thread in rec.knives may have been set a couple of years ago with the one that began:

Claymore v. Katana - which one wins?
Click to expand...

Lots of topic drift, of course.

My favorite direct answer was: "The one that rusts last."
wink.gif



------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
 
Cobalt;

Sorry if I was a bit rough on you, but your reply was a bit, weird.

Katana's have a superficial resemblance to sabers. Also note, the ever popular "tanto" point has long been in use in the West. We branded it a basic utility point, put it on everything from camp to kitchen knives and thought nothing more of it. It took somebody to modify it into an angular monstrosity and give it an Eastern appelation for it to gain popularity.

As is often said, "there is nothing new under the sun". The sword is arguably the first weapon developed expressly for killing man. It developed in nearly all cultures, even some "stone-age"(for lack of a better word)ones developed wooden proto-swords. The Australian Aborigines used a very large wooden proto-sword that resembles a katana or saber. These guys have been in Australia for 40,000 years ago, nearly since the beginning of our species. You wouldn`t say they were influenced by the Japanese, would you? While they do have a superficial resemblance to eachother, the operational parameters and construction techniques of the saber and katana are manifestly different. We see many bladestyles appearing in many cultures that are quite similar, though not neccesarily related. For instance, the Tuareg of N. Africa have long used cruciform swords without input from European nations, however once trade routes were established, we do see some blades of European manufacture being hilted in the traditional style by the Tuareg. Few cultures have developed in a bubble, but that does not always mean that because on people developed something first everyone else had to copy them. If you want to know where it ALL came from, it`s looking like modern humans, and the entire hominid genus, first appeared in Africa. They probably developed the core technologies of stonework, fire-use, and weapons-making there too.

So far as steel coming from the East, where do you start counting it as the East? Anything West of the Urals is typicaly considered Asia. When debating East/West issues one can find the West comprises less and less territory the deeper you get into the argument, to the point of Eastern-European countries being labeled as Eastern, in the Oriental sense. This is preposterous! Now to answer your question, by all appearances steel was first being manufactured and worked either in the Middle-Eastern/Medditeranian nations, or by the Celts. It`s hard to say because records are dim during that time and both populations were working iron and steel quite early on. What is known is that the technology spread from the Mid-East/Medditeranian to the East. But that doesn`t mean that the Far-Easterners had to learn the craft this way, they could well have developed it themselves. We see the S. Americans working gold, possibly meteoric iron, an early copper-culture in the Great Lakes region of N. America, metal work is a logical progression of technology that springs up in many cultures. It is worth mentioning that the early ironworkers could not produce a fire hot enough to melt steel. What they did instead was grab a piece of ore, heat it as hot they could, and pound it until they worked out all the slag. This produced iron of poor quality, but it did produce iron. This technique is also likely where forging comes from. We also see meteoric iron being worked, due to it`s higher purity, it was of imense value. For that matter, for a long time iron was more-highly prized than gold due to it`s great strength and the difficulties in working it.

I think, and I have known some who did, many strip-mall karateka instructors feel this need to convince their students that Westerners were incapable of fighting, making weapons or inventing anything of value, in order to justify their art. Or perhaps it`s just ignorance. Anyway, I know this is how the "didn't it all come from the East" mentality gets cultivated. Not all instructors are like that, and I left the scene long ago so I can`t say what it`s like now, but I do know this is a more common sentiment then one would like to admit.

James Mattis;

Claymore vs. Katana is not a can of worms I care to open! `Reason I don`t like these scenarios is because they are for the most part purely speculative."Who would win in a fight, Mighty Mouse or Popeye?" Even in instances where one side clearly outmatches the other, people are so partisan they will argue back and forth for hours. Debate is one thing. You can discuss the merits of different weapons and styles, which is where I wanted to go with this thread, or it can all to often turn into a pointless pissing contest.
 
Dude, Mighty Mouse would kick his A$$!!!

Hehehe...

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

-Corduroy
(Why else would a bear want a pocket?)
 
Not if Popeye got to his spinach; have you ever seen how this bad mo-fro can deliver a broadside with his battleship tattoo, then turn into a torpedo and blow your ass outa the water!

Hey! If anybody subscribes to Commtech's Modern Knives, there's a couple articles in their that touch on the sort of things covered in Manual del Baratero. There's this write-up on vests in particular that caught my eye, as I like the way the give you a defensive edge while at the same time look pretty sharp. From a historical perspective, the author of Manual del Baratero is of the opinion that while there are some advantages to using cloaks, vests, and hats as defensive weapons, that these must be tempered against the advantages of the empty hand. Namely, the ability to pass the knife from hand to hand(or perhaps use your free hand to trap the opponent's knife, I`m dealing with the raw text at the moment, it will take a little cleaning up), bring it into play against your opponent should you be disarmed, as well as close-in defense.

The more I work on this thing, the more I see the precepts therein reflected in the work of notable Western combatives instructors, James Keating, Col. Rex Applegate, John Steyers. With the exception of James Keating, who I know has worked with Manual del Baratero, as he was the one who pointed me to this work, I can`t say if they have all worked with this material. The fact that the same concepts show up in the work of such great instructors, wether by coincidence or design, seems to solidify my confidence in this text. I`m begining to wish there was physicaly more of it...
 
Did anybody define what a claymore is in the claymore vs. katana thread?

I am asking this because most people think a claymore is the huge two-handed sword Mel Gibson was slinging around in Braveheart. But that is not a claymore. Claymore (derived from the Gaelic "claidheamh mor") is actually the proper name for the basket hilted broadswords used by the Scots. The Gaelic for the two-handed sword is "claidheamh da laimh".

I don't understand why the mix-up has occurred, but I get a little aggravated when I see high profile sword makers selling the two-handed Braveheart type swords and calling them claymores. They should at least know the proper terminology and history behind historical pieces they make before they sell them.

I think this clarification would make a big difference in the claymore vs. katana comparison.
 
That's funny, I've read just the opposite, that the two handed sword is the proper claymore and not the basket hilted sword. I realy don't know, does anybody know why there's confusion on this?
 
Root, the information I have is from "Culloden: The Swords and the Sorrows" (p. 22), by A.V.B. Norman, et al, and from Richard F. Burton's "The Book of the Sword" (p. 130). Burton has a picture depicting the claymore as the basket-hilt sword, and Norman gives the Gaelic explanation. I have also seen other academic references to support their explanations.

I think the whole misunderstanding started a while back when the english started collecting Scottish swords. This became fashionable after they had effectively destroyed all Scotland's sovereignty and most of her culture. I believe from the beginning they screwed up the usage of the gaelic words and the misnomer stuck. I don't have any proof of this, just reading between the lines.

BTW, I was just visiting the Netsword forum, and everyone there was refering to the claymore as the two-handed variety. Go figure.
 
Words change their meaning over the centuries. "Claymore" was used for two entirely different swords at different times. You can argue which definition is more "correct" until you turn blue and your tongues fall out....

-Cougar Allen :{)
 
I`m with Cougar. Remember, the cruciform swords that were the blade of choice in Europe for so long weren't even called broadswords until the Victorians started collecting Medieval Arms. All signs point to these things simply be refered to as "swords" or some variation if the were a specialized version, i.e. the hand-and-a-half weapon with the 40inch tapering blade popular in the 14th century was refered to as a "war sword" or "great sword". Language is dynamic, and words take on new meaning as time progresses. In this case, I think it`s just traditional to refer to swords in use with the Scottish as "claymores".

Here's a little bit 'o' Scottish etymology for you; "gonne" means rock or some such in Scottish. Firearms have long been refered to as guns. Some say the link is that early firearms used rocks as projectiles, which is true. I'm not certain there's a connection, but it is a distinct possibility.

It's kinda funny, when discussing swords you`ve got Japanese and katanas being popular on one side, and Scots and claymores on the other. Did this condition pre-date the Highlander movies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top