What are the best swords?

Mr. Marotz;

I am more than aware that, like all tools, swords were developed to serve particular tasks, and that there are methods of use traditionaly associated with them.

Again, the point I was attempting to get across was that I prefer tools which are more versatile to specialized tools.

I am confident I understand the point you're trying to make, as there's never really been a time that I didn't understand it. I think you're seeing the point I was trying to make.

I fail to see anything about a katana that would make it any more difficult for the unindoctrinated to pick it up and whack at somebody. It has a blade an something to hold onto, like any other sword.

If you're saying that the arts traditionaly associated with katanas are much more difficult to pick up, well, I'll be more than happy to leave that for others to discuss.

I'm sorry for the sarcasm, it's just that you see some things over and over. Similar to your initial reaction to my personal opinion of the katana.

JoeL;

False edge attacks are present in the fencing styles that sprang up with longswords. Wether or not you had much success with them does not negate the fact that this is part of how they are/were traditionaly used.

Yes, I am aware that the primary function of the pommel is to secure the hilt and balance the blade. However, the fact still remains that it does aid weapon retention.

Additionaly, I've owned, and cut with, a number of swords.

Mr. Lancelot;

I have seen test-cutting video clips, the various "arms and armour" shows on the History Channel, TLC, or TDC frequently feature them. I never said anything about doubting the ability of a katana to cut. I've even seen a katana used to cut through a steel helmet, live and in person.(though there's no telling about the inherent defensive quality of the helmet, it could have simply been work hardened and of low grade steel)

I was also not trying to suggest that katanas were incapable of cleaving. I was attempting to illustrate that a curved blade is quite good at draw cuts while a straight blade is better for shearing cuts.

As far as thrusting goes, define "WEAK". I used the word "inferior".

A blunt, asymetrical point, out of alignment with the handle, is not optimized for thrusting. Against bare flesh, or even light armour, it can still be deadly, but it is not optimized. This is why no culture developed a specialized foining weapon with a curved, blunt. asymetricaly-pointed blade. To cover all the bases, I have heard of an African people who used a curved sword to reach around behind an enemy and "hook" them, but this is not quite the same thing.

It's not that the thrust will miss, if you've ever read Burton's old book, you'll readily see the point I'm trying to make; you have to move the blade further out of line with the target if using a curved sword, which slows down the attack, and you have to push aside more material to drive the weapon home.

I've read both of Clements' books, and pretty much all of the online Medieval and Renaisance texts, and own a large collection of later texts, which aren't available online. I personaly study 18th and 19th century sword styles, but I am not unfamiliar with the older forms.

You seem to be under the impression that I am suggesting the cross is in some fashion being used as an active defence to intercept the oncoming blade. This is not the case. Slipping is your active defence, or counter-cutting.

However, the fact that the the arms of the cross cover such a large portion of the top of the wrist and hand offers a good deal of passive protection against incidental contact.

The main thing the tsuba has going for it is that it is vaguely disk-shaped, and therefore can provide some passive protection to the outside and inside of the hand. Later compound gaurds served the same purpose on European swords.

Nonetheless, the tsuba does not extend over nearly the same surface area. I too have extensively sparred against practioners of numerous sword styles, and even those who never studied any formalized school. My experience is contrary to yours regarding the relative efficacies of the tsuba and cross, however I would be willing to discuss the details of why we may have had different experiences.

Everything I've read and heard suggests that, traditionaly(not modern repro's &c), katanas are not truly tempered. Their edges are hardened, but not really drawn to any extent, while the spine is left softer. While that certainly gives you acceptable overall integrity, and excelent edge retention, it also makes the edge more vulnerable to damage.
 
Post script;

I retract this statement. This seems to be very much the wrong place to try and hold a discussion. Perhaps this is why the "I'm okay, you're okay" approach is the mandate of the day.

[This message has been edited by Snickersnee (edited 12-07-2000).]
 
Snick, read what you've said yourself:

The wide arms of the hilt of a longsword provide an infinitely superior defense for the hand and wrist than the diminutive tsuba of a katana

--------

Now, if you are going to say "Slipping is your active defence, or counter-cutting.", then whatever crossguard or tsuba JUST DOESN'T MATTER. Why saying that then?

Another point is, WHAT? The tip of a katana is BLUNT?

Naoe-shizu.jpg


Is the tip blunt huh?

Sorry for being harsh, but it's a bit too ridiculous now.

And if you want to see how I spar, I can give you the address to download our clips!
 
YOWSERS!!!

That blade certainly is active!!! Thanks for the beautiful pic too (compliments of Aoi-Art I'm sure).

Shinryû.
 
Hi Robert. That pic was sent to me by JoeL, Joe Leung. I think you know him already. The blade is an old antique that has gone through many polishes. It has lost a lot of material around the blade already. Still, we can see it's both good looking and deadly, not to mention the SHARP tip that will puncture my heart. :P

Being a european sword user doesn't necessary to be a katana basher. :P
 
Nod, doesn't look too broad up there by the monouchi particularly...can see where the hamon gets a lil close...but the blade is still alive and well...not tired yet. And look at the activity still...sheesh...that's some impressive stuff.

If ya got any Gassan blade pics lemme know...I'm always up for a good Gassan!

Shinryû.
 
Snick,

I think Robert and CHAN have covered things really well. My point was that your comparison did seem to bash (and still seems to) katanas. I love the longsword, too, don't get me wrong. I'm not very weel versed in the styles surrounding it, and I know you have experience in the western sword arts. All I wanted to point out was that a comparison doesn't need to be done by bashing a sword, unless you know how it was used, that's all. I agree that different swords have their strengths, and were developed for specific purposes and fighting styles. Let's just try to compare without bashing something, unelss you know why or what you're bashing. You can still point out all the advantages of a longsword -- it stands on its own merit without having to be compared to (or bashing) something else. Have a little more confidence in your area of knowledge. That was all my point was. Hope this clears it up.

~Brian.
 
Mr. Lacelot;

Since you've trained in a sword art, I assumed that you'd understand the difference between a passive defence and an active defence. However, I will be more than happy to explain the phenomena;

In this case, the active defence for the hand and wrist, and body, for that matter, would be the slip or counter-cut. When the blade is coming at you, these are the techniques/strategies you actively employ to avoid injury. You see the blade coming your way, and you take immediate action.

A passive defence is a defence which requires little or no concious effort on your part to employ, a secondary defence against incidental or accidental injury.

For example, armour. Armour is a passive defense because it is not used to actively intercept oncoming attacks. It is there to protect you in case such an attack finds an opening or gets through your active defence. A knight who relied on his armour as an active defence, to intentionaly intercept incoming attacks, would not live past his first encounter with a halberder.

A shield is a much more active defence, as it is actualy use to directly oppose an incoming attack.

If a cross were to be used as an active defence, that would mean that when I saw a swordstroke coming at me, I would deliberately stop it with the cross.

This, obviously, is not how it was done.

As a passive defence, it protects my hand and wrist if my opponent disengages after a parry, if his blade slides down my own while bearing, or if he slips my parry and attempts to cut my wrist or arm, there is a chance for it to meet the steel of my cross rather than the flesh of my body.

That's a nice picture of a katana with a much more accutely angled point than the vast majority I've seen. It remains asymetrical and out of alignment with the handle. It simply is not a configuration that is optimized for thrusting.

Does that mean you cannot stab someone with it? Of course not. You can stab someone with a screwdriver, and yet a screw driver has neither edge nor point and is far from idealy suited to this purpose. An icepick, on the other hand, due to its narrow and acute point, has excelent penetrative qualities. It's simply a matter of basic mechanics.

Mr. Jones;

It's well and widely known that the katana is simply not a weapon dear to my heart. I am also well aware that it is beloved and venerated by many.

However, I fail to see how saying "this has this feature, this does not" is "bashing". I could do a similar comparison between a longsword and any other sword, smallsword, sabre, tulwar, pata. I chose the katana because, in terms of popularity and symbolism, they are close competitors.

Actualy, a smallsword would have been a great subject to illustrate the differences between a versatile and highly specialized weapon.

All the same, I am extremely doubtful that I would encounter any sort of resistance to rebuttal to such a comparison between a longsword and one of these less famous swords. No one would try and take me to task for suggesting that a Medieval European longsword was a more versatile weapon than an 18th century smallsword.

I have specificaly avoided getting into an "X martial art Vs. Y martial art" argument by avoiding the subjective nature of traditional combative methodology and only examining the objective specifications of the weapons' physical configurations. Laws of mechanics are the same for everyone, regardless of culture or context. Certain forms serve certain purposes much better than others.
 
For example, armour. Armour is a passive defense because it is not used to actively intercept oncoming attacks. It is there to protect you in case such an attack finds an opening or gets through your active defence. A knight who relied on his armour as an active defence, to intentionaly intercept incoming attacks, would not live past his first encounter with a halberder.

--------

Not necessary. The knight can rush into the range of the halberder at the moment of action and intercept the pole, not the blade, with his armored and padded part. The pad here is important to absorb the shock. With the laws of physics, intercepting the pole will make the knight suffer lesser shock than from the position of the blade, and moreover, he would not be cut. After the move, he can cease the pole by his arm to prevent the halberd's blade to hook him from the back.

I've done this before in our sparring when I used a single sword against a spear. I got hit on my ribs but I was lucky that the hit was not powerful enough to cease me. Then I secured it with my armpit while my opponent tried to pull the polearms back and slash my flesh along with the move. I then cut him down with the sword on my other hand.

On the aggressive side, an armored fist/gauntlet is a very good weapon against the face of the opponent and a very good tools to cease the opponent's blade. Defensive alone? NEVER!

Hell, I even managed to deflect/hard block a spear/a chinese dao's spine with my unarmored empty hand in the sparring! Remember we do full speed and full force with real weight equipment.

--------

As a passive defence, it protects my hand and wrist if my opponent disengages after a parry, if his blade slides down my own while bearing, or if he slips my parry and attempts to cut my wrist or arm, there is a chance for it to meet the steel of my cross rather than the flesh of my body.

--------

Sorry, that just exactly showed how ignorant you are to the usage of crossguard. Exactly, I mean.

In a fight against crossguard, I would aggressively slide my blade down his to cut his grip. EASILY!

In a fight against a tsuba, his tsuba would have stopped my blade for sure if I slided too close to his blade.

Why?

Because a bar of metal, a narrow bar as the crossguard, are not GOING TO SAVE YOU FROM THE CUT.

Don't believe me? Let me quote John Clements work. It's a shame that you've read SO MANY yet understtand so little. :P

Page 82, Paragraph one:

"A Medieval sword's cross-guard was not really for protecting the hand. This is a common misunderstanding. Certainly, it does offer some defense against the shafts and hafts of other weapons, but clearly it is not very extensive. If it had been used for defense against blades we would expect surviving historical swords in collections and museums to have considerable and noticeable scarring on them. They do not. This lack of expected trauma (nicks and gouges) can only be explained by understanding how the weapons are actually used. The same can be said for the blade's shoulder above the hilt. Modern practice with replica swords also reveals that protecting the hand from cuts is a minor and secondary function. Instead, the function of wide Medieval cross-guards seems to have been for preventing the user's hand from slamming into or hitting against the flat of an opponent's shield."

--------

That's a nice picture of a katana with a much more accutely angled point than the vast majority I've seen.

--------

I now doubt what kind of VAST MAJORITY you've seen.

gunome.jpg


Is this blunt?

Katana29f.jpg


Is this blunt? (this is a cheap non-traditional replica, yet, it's still sharp)

parts.gif


Is this blunt?

sugata.gif


Any of them blunt?

polish.GIF


How about this one?

swordphoto02.GIF


How about this?

swordphoto03.GIF


And this?

I think it's enough, right? If not, tell me, I will post MORE!

---------

I fail to see how saying "this has this feature, this does not" is "bashing".

---------

This is not bashing, but by saying something inaccurate to make a bad name out of something IS! Such as the blunt of the tip, the inferior defensive ability of the tsuba and many other points you've stated.

---------

No one would try and take me to task for suggesting that a Medieval European longsword was a more versatile weapon than an 18th century smallsword.

---------

I would, if I have the time.

Talk about anti-armor ability? Long sword.

Talk about reach? Long sword.

Talk about cutting power? Long sword.

Talk about close quarter combat? Long sword with half sword stance fends well also.

Talk about scaring the hell outta your opponent? Long sword.

Talk about more material recycled if the blade is dead? Long sword. :P

Talk about a more fearsome wallhanger? Long sword.

Talk about trying to cosplay a european warrior? Long sword.

Talk about the power of just bashing at your opponent blindly without a sharp edge? Long sword.

Talk about the possibility of cutting a charging horse's legs? Long sword.....

hell, I sounds like a crazy man like someone was on this thread now. Better stop here. :P
 
And just want you to be sure that, if someone here in Hong Kong badmouthed a long sword like you did to katana, I will invite him/her out to taste my twin bastard swords technique. :P

Yes, I'm a bastard... not only a bastard but a bastard of two times!
smile.gif


In fact, I have defeated a handful of kendo players and one novice iaido player already. Despite that, I won't say it's because my bastard swords are better. Come give me two katana and the result will likely to be the same.

It's the technique that matters if the equipment is somehow similar enough. I'm not saying katana is similar to bastard swords in terms of both size and handling, but at least they are more similar than a two hander to a tanto. :P
 
Hey...

I think Snickersnee was just making the point that the tip of the typical Japanese sword (let's take chu-kissaki just to be fair)...is not designed for stabbing as it is not focused in the center where it would have the most support. In a sense that's correct, but for stabbing through what? The tip of a Japanese sword tends to be very sharp and also well supported by hira-niku (meat). The tsuki (thrusts) are not intended to go through steel barrels or planks of wood. The Japanese sword can be used extensively for thrusting in its proper respects as it did a very good job of cutting inward. You don't grab a kat and just jam it forward. Typically the tsuki is an upward motion, and the piercing is done with both the tip itself and the fukura (the edge along the tip).

It's probably not really a thrust in the same context as other swords like gladii were used, but different strokes for different folks.

Shinryû.
 
But it's not blunt for sure.
smile.gif

To say that the VAST MAJORITY katana is blunt tip is like to say that the VAST MAJORITY long sword was unsharpened.
smile.gif


It's a mistake big enough.
 
The question was, "What are the best swords?"
The best swords are those that have passed through your opponent.
 
I still say that the swords, as well as any other weapons, develope in cultures and are adapted to those cultures. For instance, the broadsword of the early Medieval period gave way to the strong diamond section stabbing sword of the late Medieval as armor evolved from mail that could be slashed open by a broadsword strongly wielded through mail reinforced with plate to the full plate of the 15th Century. This was largely impervious to a chopping or slashing attack with a sword, so the war hammer and the mace came into use, while the sword evolved into a reinforced device for poking holes in plate or for breaking through the joints, the aforesaid diamond sectioned thrusting sword.

With the development of practical individual of gunpowder weapons, armor began to be phased out and the rapier began to appear on hte battlefield as it was no longer necessary to break into armor. Eventually, the footsoldier evolved the bayonet for the grunt and the smallsword for the officers, the final step in the long evolution of the sword as a weapon of war. At this point, it began to be replaced by a more efficient device for the officers, a revolver.

I do not know enough of the evolution of swords in other cultures to comment, but I would be surprised to find out that it was terribly different, except that Japan was able to reverse the introduction of muskets early in the Tokugawa shogunate as a part of its withdrawal from the world. This must have had some effect.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller
 
Mr Lancelot;

Are you even aware that neither Clements' Medieval Swordsmanship nor Renaisance Swordsmanship are primary sources? Do you understand that the system taught is the HACA method, derived from, but not actualy, a historical style?

For all the good work he's done, surely you're aware that he is not universaly held as the unimpeachable highest authority, that there are several scholarly errors in his work, and that the methodology he developed from the primary sources are in fact influenced by his own presumptions and assumptions.

For instance, his method of infering function from examining antique weapons is inherently flawed. They have been polished and repolished for litteraly centuries, or else victims of oxidation. All possible marrings would have been either erased or obscured.

Likewise, it's hard to understand how many millenia of sword-and-shield fighting went by with no one developing a wide cross to keep from bashing their hands on shields. Not even such legendary shield-and-sword men, and engineers, as the Romans.

However, this is rebutting what Clements' has written. Clements and HACA have done some good work, and though subject to peer review like anyone else, others have taken this up elsewhere. I will adress your protests;

Your example of sliding your blade to cut your opponent's hand is a simply gambit, also one I am quite familiar with, being that I study primary sources. It is simply defeated by rotating the wrist, bringing the cross between my flesh and your blade, and then twisting a bit, binding your blade.

You may feel free to post as many pics as you would like. The points remain more obtuse than those of a true foining weapon, such as a smallsword or rapier.

Your tirades are becoming more presumptuos and nonsensical by the momment, and I'm losing intrest in this rapidly degenerating discussion. You do not know who you are talking to.

Mr. Martotz;

My weapon of choice, depending upon configuration, suffers from much the same disadvantages in thrusting as the katana.

A tactic we use is to turn the spine of the sabre either upwards or horizontaly, and thereby alter the effect of the asymetetrical point, giving it a tendency to dig in rather than deflect off.

Unless thrown in an arcing motion, as you described with the katana, an asymetrical point will have a tendency to experience a "ramping" effect when it encounters resistance, such as a breastplate or ribcage. Like the bow of a boat, it will have a predisposition to try and rise above the resistance.

Angling the spine horizontaly will cause the point to deflect inwards, toward the center of the target, and turning it upwards will cause it to slide down and bite in rather than try and slip off target.

Are similar strategies used with the katana?
 
Please spell my name correctly...much appreciated.

Again...the kat, like many other styles of sword, were not designed for thrusting primarily, but they have adapted over centuries so that thrusting was more feasible and optional. The Japanese sword arts tend to put a relatively low priority on tsuki, but it's still practiced (sometimes extensively) in most/all curricula. In most cases the thrust is aimed towards the throat, the face, or the stomach, but it's not at all unlikely to see a thrust to a different area of the body from miscellaneous positions.

While I have heard of things like inverting the sword so it is edge up for the thrust, or to the side so it goes in sideways, I have not practiced these techniques first hand.

With a tsuki, the intent is to drive the point inward, and in the same way carve inwards with the fukura (edge of the tip). Japanese swords can have very flat fukura, or very rounded. O-kissaki (large/long points) also are more optimized for thrusting than say a stereotypical chu-kissaki. The sword was not meant to stab through any kind of heavy armor. If there was any sort of significant armor to penetrate, very thick/stout tanto called yoroi-doshi could be used, or yari, or any of numerous other weapons.

I assume you know that. Japanese swords come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes, often depending on what the individual wanted to use it for.

I noticed in soete-tsuki, you have much more control over the thrust as your left hand is on the spine of the blade while your right hand is back. It is intended for in-close utilization (probably to the extent of "half-swording") and one had tremendous control over the tip.

In tsuki, you CAN encounter the problem of "ramping" if you encounter the sternum or something like that while not properly executing. However, usually accounting for the way the sword is held, and the fact that most swords are not deeply curved at all, along with the acuteness of the point, a proper tsuki will still strike with the very point first to pierce, while the edge cuts in.

But again, the approach is different, technique is different, and there's a different set of priorities. Also remember that the vast majority of katana did not have much curve, a good number of them had half an inch of curvature. That's not all that much really.

Usually people have a tendency to think I'm overly biased when I say Japanese swords require a good amount of understanding in use to be used with even moderate efficiency. I, personally, think this is true. At least on the lower end of the scale. I would say to be a great swordsman, you'd need equal skill, but to be mediocre or OK, you likely need more training with a kat. Why? A few minor reasons, probably the biggest reason is that swords of European design were made for taking much more degrees of lateral stress than Japanese swords were. There was higher margin of error. Of course, you don't wanna send in any jackass untrained into battle (though it would save money and time!), you want them to have not only a thorough understanding of the weapon, but how to use the weapon.

I will not presume much about Euro swords, that's not my area. I can't tell you if the guard is for defense, keeping your hand from sliding up on the blade while thrusting, or rectal pleasure while off-duty. However, if the methodologies of either cultural background needed to further modify their equipment or their warrior tactics, they would. Narcissism does little good if you have nothing to be narcissistic about.

Nowadays the point is moot. Japanese swordsmanship, while probably more intact than most other styles, has likely been filtered/"tweaked" through the ages, and European stuff I've noticed has come mostly from speculation and theory supported by some evidence. The samurai were gone by the Haitorei decree, and the firearm helped push the sword deep into obsolete status around the world.

But swords are still evolving a little. In Tameshigiri competition and stuff, there are swords made almost specifically for the purpose of cutting mats and stuff like butter. Misbalanced, very wide blades, relatively thin, usually a flat edge geometry. They're modified for that particular use. Goes to show that any style can still be modified a good degree to suit needs of an individual.

Shinryû.

(damn typos everywhere! EVERYWHERE I tell you!!)

[This message has been edited by Robert Marotz (edited 12-06-2000).]
 
By twisting your wrist, you risk the following:

1. If you twist at the time of the impact of the horizontal cut that is prior to the blade sliding action, you risk edge parry.

2. If you twist at the time when the blade slide, you ruin your opportunity to counter cut by taking away your own blade alignment.

3. You don't know how far/close I'm sliding near your blade, and if you intend to defeat it with a twisting wrist, you are also doing a gambit (which moves aren't?). To defeat a farther sliding blade, you have to twist more. How fast can you twist? How much can you twist? In this case, both are gambits and I would like to be the aggressive one.
smile.gif


I will not bother to tell you how we counter it here. You can stick with your primary sources as long as you want.
smile.gif


About the kissaki, just say it again, are they BLUNT?
 
Mr. Ruhala,

You have good techniques with Medieval European longswords, very proficient, even better than Mr. Clement I would say. And that's fine, and makes a formidable swordsman, with all the advanced techniques such as false-edge attacks and efficiently use of cross-guard to block and catch the opponent's blade.... in a fraction of a second!!!! Great!!

----
For instance, his method of infering function from examining antique weapons is inherently flawed. They have been polished and repolished for litteraly centuries, or else victims of oxidation. All possible marrings would have been either erased or obscured.
----

Why do we need to polish out all the marrings on guard? There are various ways to arrest rusting rather than "mirror polish", of course you see I am joking. But for museum piece, Isn't it better to have a X-guard that has all the parry-mark in order to show the path it walked? In the period where they were used, if I am the owner, I will sharpen the sword, but will not take care of the guard by polishing(polishing remove materials and make it less PROTECTIVE), in case the guard is no more serviceable, can I replace it with a new one?

-------
You may feel free to post as many pics as you would like. The points remain more obtuse than those of a true foining weapon, such as a smallsword or rapier
-----

Mr. Ruhala, I thought we were talking about and comparing katana with Medievel Long Sswords, then you are comparing it with smallswords and rapier???!! How come you don't compare it with a Kindjal? Or even a fairbain dagger?
smile.gif
I would think a rapier really cuts well. hahaha
Mr. Lance... OOOpps! Sorry Mr. Chan, You shouldn't post so many pics especially those from Aoi Art. I hope that Mr. Tsuruta don't mind. And if anyone is interested in any of the posted blades, I think Mr. Tsursta still has some of them on hands http://www.aoi-art.ab.psiweb.com/index.html

Here are some the pic of Mr. Chan(Lancelot)'s sword that he used to bash around
View

http://www.inet.ca/viking/footsoldier.html
The tip of the 1086 katana by Howard Clark that has cut numerous straw-matt and thin bamboo, my sword,please note the sharp point
View

The tip of my Kindjal, 18th century piece,
View

View

sharp? But I can confidently say that I can cut the point off with one stroke with my 1086, but if the opponent closed to arm's length then I am finished.....

Try cutting on bamboo with a katana yourself and try watching someone who is proficient in JSA to cut bamboo with katana. And then try cutting a bamboo with your favourite long sword and tell us the difference.....

Don't just talk, try thrusting with a katana and you'll see how your theory works.

For our "not so humble servant", Mr. Michael Ruhala
smile.gif


Joe Leung


[This message has been edited by JoeL (edited 12-07-2000).]

[This message has been edited by JoeL (edited 12-07-2000).]

[This message has been edited by JoeL (edited 12-07-2000).]
 
Mr. Lancelot;

Contrary to HACA doctrine, parrying with the edge is not the end of the world. Your sword will survive it, and live on to fight many a battle. In fact, with the saber, you deliberately block with the edge. I had a Spanish briquette that gave me litteraly years of this sort of service before being retired, and I didn't put it out to pasture because its structural integrity was in any way impaired.

I think this is a good example of the sort of reactionary policy that hurts this otherwise solid organization. I believe that the outright hatred of edge parrying is largely based on the fact that this is how the hated stage fighters and guys in movies depict these swords being used, rather than any hard facts.

Either way, would you rather nick your edge, a minor dent that will largely disappear with sharpening, or get your hand/fingers cut off? It's your call, but as far as I go, the steel's gonna eat it before my flesh does.

As far as issue #2 goes, go ahead and counter cut, then. It's not like that "slide the blade and cut the hand" is any kind of unstoppable secret attack or anything. You had simple singled out this specific technique to try and chalenge the notion of a cross gaurd being able to actualy gaurd something, so I offered an example of how it could still protect you.

The point of mention that technique as "simply a gambit" was, "simply a(singular, one out of many" gambit. I was trying to show that this is one specific technique, and not in any way representative of the role of the gaurd as a passive defence on the grand scale, even though it can defend you even in this instance.

If you don't study primary sources, I wonder how you can claim familiarity with traditional Western swordsmanship. Practice the HACA method with it's realisticaly weighted padded weapons, but study the old masters, too. After all, they were the ones who developed these styles of combat.

Mr. Marotz, sorry about the typo. No offence was intended.

As far as the gaurd goes, it serves several purposes at once, like any other portion of a sword. Even the blade, which is both offensive and defensive in nature.

As far as "mostly speculation and theory supported by some evidence", well, it depends on what sort of system you're studying. You essentialy have modern composites, and historical manuals.

Modern composites, for instance the HACA method, draw from primary sources, but mix technique from different sources and try and make a homogenous system out of it. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, a lot of personal agenda gets tossed in, too. HACA has a pretty good system of checks and balances, and are straight forward about what they do. Some others are not so honest.

The other option is to pick a historical master, and study the manual he wrote on his system. Through illustration, text, a training partner, and structured training sets, you get the basics and through extended practice and fencing you gain a high degree of proficiency.

While the idea of a litterary martial tradition may sound odd to many Eastern stylists used to working in a direct teacher/pupil training environment, it was an accepted method of learning throughout all of Europe for many centuries.

Mr. Leung

I understand that your first paragraph is an attempt to mock and humble me, but the trouble is that I never said anything to compare myself to Mr. Clements. In order to turn someone's words against them, they have to have said them.

I think that you're trying to somehow say that I am privy to all sorts of secret techniques that are beyond Clements grasp in your second sentence, first paragraph. In actuality, these are techniques well documented in primary sources and taught by Clements himself in his books.

The polishing was not done to prevent rusting, it was done for beautification. Well, not entirely true, light coats of oil were often used to keep oxidation at bay, but when it got bad enough it had to be polished.

However, these antique weapons have spent generation after generation in private holdings and museums, where they were made all nice and shiny for display. Just like how much, if not most, plate armour was left black, but if you go to musuems today you see a lot of it has been brightly polished. While white armours did go through their own period of popularity, the blackened finish was always common because, like blueing on a rifle, it helps inhibit rust.

The oxidation I reffered to in the most you're refuting is the product of being burried for a few centuries, or else sunk to the bottom of a lake.

Historicaly, swords have been rehilted, rehandled, and re-bladed before being retired from use, and then it's not uncommon for them to be cut down or altered to make other weapons, or else sold onto a foreign market.

Kind like how the museum in Spain just found out that one of the swords attributed to El Cid that had been thought to be manufactured too late in history actualy has a tenth century blade, but a 15th century hilt, or how the sword of Charlemagne has had its hilt gilded.

I started out comparing the longsword and the katana. However, a few people seemed to be having a hard time accepting that I was suggesting that certain features make tools more applicable for certain applications.

Mr. Lancelot started up with something about how pointy and what deadly stabbers katana are, so I attempted to illustrate the difference between something that cab be made to stab, for instance, a katana, and something designed to stab, a smallsword and a rapier, to illustrate the design differences inherent to the applications.

Unfortunately, it seems that some forumites have a hard time understanding these concepts, or else are fond of semantics.(and that means wordgames, it has nothing to do with sperm, so please, nobody try and rebutt me for suggesting that someone might like playing with sperm. I am making no such accusation)
 
I think you have to be clear and not to assume so much.

1. I said "You risk edge parry" and said nothing more. I didn't say your sword won't survive it. I didn't say it was not done at all. You assumed I mean those, though. Moreover, while you base your opinion on the available of methods, I base my opinion on practical.

2. I didn't said katana are good stabbers. I said they can be good thrusters also. Moreover, it's YOU who say the points are blunt and that's the thing I've been countering your point.

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