A good short read for all the SHTF guys wanting a sword..

I question the writer's thought process on coming up with his main premise.

Spears were more common because they were cheaper to produce, and could be produced more quickly. Also, spears are better suited for a larger force that can use tactics that favored the spear (a group of men with long spears can defend against cavalry, and build a phalanx - which is the medieval equivalent of a tank).

In a SHTF scenario you may wind up in a small guerilla group, and anything that resembles a battle will most likely be a melee fight between two opposing small groups.

A Katana is much more maneuverable than a long spear, and offers many more options for an attack. Swords were the culmination of melee arms all over the world, not just in japan. The reason people prefer the Katana to a European sword is that in its time it was made of better materials, and even today the design offers many advantages over other sword designs made of the same modern steels. The sword was the AR-15; the Spear was a crate of Mosin Nagants.
 
Some guy in the comments made the same metaphor about a crate of Mosin Nagants. Weird, but I think it's the most logical reference to available modern arms.

Honestly, there is such a stockpile of ammunition, if SHTF happened tomorrow we would probably be using firearms for at least the rest of our lives. The components are simple enough to make that we would probably be able to keep a supply of ammunition indefinitely.
 
I agree that spears are cheaper to produce and can be produced more quickly.

However, I disagree that the sword is the ultimate melee weapon. The ultimate melee weapon is unit organization and longer reach (there's all sorts of fancy stuff about kill radii etc. but we'll ignore that for the moment). A group of guys with spears / halberds / long axes etc. is going to typically beat a unit armed with swords, it's a matter of force and reach. That's why swiss halberdiers and later pikemen destroyed Burgundy. That's why the samurai's primary weapon was the bow and why knights carried lances. Musashi was beat by a guy with a staff and it was no accident. Are there exceptions? Sure the spanish sword and buckler men were able to beat the swiss pike. I don't know any spanish sword and buckler men though, nor for that matter to I know many people that are actually trained swordsman and I've been doing this for a pretty good while.

So in our doomsday scenario you are going to have untrained guys with swords vs untrained guys with spears or axes. Reach and force are almost certainly going to beat cool factor in that situation.

As for better materials, not in the least. Katana are made like they are because the raw materials were hard to come by and were of poor quality. European smiths had access to better to better materials, the mines of Noricum were producing quality iron since Roman times. I would like to hear what the inherent advantages of a katana are as well... and over what European sword type.

As was stated in the article the sword was a sidearm and a prestige weapon. This especially became true through the middle ages when full plate eventually made the wearer pretty much impervious to most sword blows. At that point the impact weapons were the order of the day.

It pains me to say the above because I like swords as much as the next guy. Perhaps more than most, but we do have to face history as it was.
 
Still a pretty cool little sword, especially with the 5160. Though I agree with the above comments and history, I'd be happy to have it strapped to my pack.
 
The spear was used to as a make shift wall to allow archers to work on the enemy or to break charges of infantry and more importantly cavalry. Works very well in an open field in groups.

Now an 18" spear head on a 3' pole would make a good weapon. Think 5' staff. In an urban environment a shorter sword is a better option than a 2 handed claymore.
 
Scientists have found that surviving examples of eastern cutlery had less inclusions than other cultures, and many of the techniques used in traditional japanese blade smithing benefited the final product (like the infusion of carbon and the repeated folding). Steel that was traded in the middle east was sought after by western sword makers, and some of the best examples of swords made during the dark ages in Europe are believed to have been made from steel sourced from mid east trading outposts (the origin of Damascus steel). One example is the Ulbrecht sword found in viking villages - even though most viking swords were of a lower quality steel, the authentic swords marked "Ulbrecht" were made of a cleaner steel imported from the mid east. I'm sure the more civilized european empires had extensive reserves of high quality ore, but the low tech rituals and natural formations in the east gave their swords benefits that are not seen in contemporary European swords.

You're still comparing large military engagements against a modern SHTF scenario. A small unit of trained soldiers is going to be able to wreak havoc on any number of civilians, no matter what weapons they use. Nobody is going to take a group of people with 10" weapons and charge into a formation of people with 7' spears - it's just not going to happen. It wouldn't happen in 1300, and it's definitely not going to happen in a SHTF scenario. It's like selecting an EDC; nobody has the knife that is best suited as a melee weapon because it's not going to be used as a melee weapon 24/7. It has to be carried, and it may not be used for weeks. It's not a question of what is the best melee weapon - it's a question of versatility, weight, and compromise. Are you going to carry a 6lb halberd in addition to an 8lb rifle for 10 years until you run out of bulltets?

What gives people the idea that everyone is going to go back to wearing plate armor anyway? Plate armor that was used in Europe won't stop bullets, and there is always going to be a threat of bullets in addition to swords. Swords do penetrate chain mail, can penetrate thin plate, and most kevlar will not stop a sword - modern plate armor has large areas that can be penetrated by a stabbing weapon, and swords and knives are precise.

In our doomsday scenario you're going to have a lot of trained and untrained guys with firearms. The sword is a popular melee weapon for SHTF because a knife has been the single melee weapon that has stood the integration of modern firearms, and a sword is simply a longer knife. It's a compromise - people can carry a 1.5lb sword as a backup indefinitely. A sword would be effective in tight hallways and urban areas that restrict movement, but still offer enough range and speed to face off in single combat with about any melee weapon in the middle of a field and stand a chance.

As for the advantages a Katana has over different swords, this has been beaten to death, and no one has ever given good evidence that any other sword is as versatile and effective. I know that some of the tests have been biased (people have developed many tests biased against a katana though), and a lot of evidence of various swords weakness has come from the ignorance of the tester (like trying to cut with the base of a Gim, or using European swords that are not sharpened as well as the Katana), but there is a reason that the Katana has stood the test of time and is considered by most experts to be the pinnacle of sword design. The blade geometry, the weight, the variable temper, the ability to stab and slash, all add to its effectiveness and versatility. That's not saying there aren't other effective designs - there are many. Often the properties of other swords that make them superior at their primary function also limits their versatility though. In a SHTF scenario, you will be facing unarmored opponents if you face any opponents at all. It's going to be a lot closer to Edo Japan than the Roman conquests of Gaul though. Edo Japan would actually be a great historical model for how people would act if all technology was destroyed and we ran out of bullets in 3 years.


Of course, I don't think that melee weapons should be a focus of preparing for SHTF combat. That slot in your arsenal would be better served with a machete or another tool that could double as a melee weapon on an unarmored opponent. The idea that we'd run out of bullets in 1 year is absurd. There are billions of bullets in this country - more than enough to kill every man woman and child on earth. They are not hard to build. We also have lots of muzzle loading rifles that could shoot any round pellet, and requires only a source for black powder. If society develops into something resembling medieval warfare, we're definitely going to have the capacity to make gunpowder. It's naive to think that you'd be shooting enough to use every bullet on the planet in a year.
 
Scientists have found that surviving examples of eastern cutlery had less inclusions than other cultures, and many of the techniques used in traditional japanese blade smithing benefited the final product (like the infusion of carbon and the repeated folding).

From which periods? Notably what we call pattern welding does much the same thing in terms of carbon migration as traditional Japanese sword making technique and the base materials were better. Iron bearing sand is a poor starting material from the get go, all that extra work was necessary to make something useful out of it. I'm not denigrating the katana by any means but history is rife with swords from all cultures made of materials every bit as good as anything created in Japan.

Steel that was traded in the middle east was sought after by western sword makers, and some of the best examples of swords made during the dark ages in Europe are believed to have been made from steel sourced from mid east trading outposts (the origin of Damascus steel).

Absolutely correct, I've read some pretty convincing monographs that some of the best of the Ulfberht swords may have been made from Wootz from India, that doesn't preclude domestic sources as well and indeed Ulfberht swords are also demonstrably made from domestic sources.

but the low tech rituals and natural formations in the east gave their swords benefits that are not seen in contemporary European swords.

What "natural formations?"

You're still comparing large military engagements against a modern SHTF scenario.

I'm simply pointing out that all things being equal in the hands of the untrained there is an arguement to be made that polearms are more effective than swords.

It's not a question of what is the best melee weapon

My apologies the statement that I was addressing was yours about "swords being the culmination of melee weapons..."

- it's a question of versatility, weight, and compromise. Are you going to carry a 6lb halberd in addition to an 8lb rifle for 10 years until you run out of bulltets?

I wouldn't want to be in a position where I had to carry anything for 10 years, but I do understand your point about general utility. I would suggest that if that is the primary concern a sword is no more useful than a polearm, soldiers on the move don't even like carrying sidearms because of the extra weight. It's why our troops in general don't carry swords now either.

What gives people the idea that everyone is going to go back to wearing plate armor anyway?

I'm sorry, I wasn't suggesting that. I was merely pointing out that historically the effectiveness of the sword was limited, and that it was not the ultimate "melee weapon."

In our doomsday scenario you're going to have a lot of trained and untrained guys with firearms. The sword is a popular melee weapon for SHTF because a knife has been the single melee weapon that has stood the integration of modern firearms, and a sword is simply a longer knife.

I suspect that the reality is that the sword is a popular weapon in such a scenario with folks that have never packed one for any extended period of time and probably have little in the way of military experience. In short I'm guessing romantics and not pragmatists. I have of course been wrong before, but I think I'm on pretty safe on that one.

As for the advantages a Katana has over different swords, this has been beaten to death, and no one has ever given good evidence that any other sword is as versatile and effective.

What can a katana do that an Oakeshott Type XVIIIa cannot? ... and the XVIIIa has longer reach and two edges.

but there is a reason that the Katana has stood the test of time and is considered by most experts to be the pinnacle of sword design.

What experts?

Of course, I don't think that melee weapons should be a focus of preparing for SHTF combat.

Agreed.
 
This discussion sounds like a fun one.

There's more reasons why spears were the predominant tool for your average army in the relevant time periods, and that's training large groups of people. It takes a LOT of training to get really proficient with a sword, unless you're doing what the Romans did and using them in conjunction with a shield wall and using a very limited set of moves. Spears are cheaper to produce and don't require nearly as much proficiency to be useful, although it's VERY challenging to march in formation with a large spear. More, anyone could make a staff, which meant a lot of conscripts already had a skillset that would translate over nicely to spears.

With regards to the relative goodness of katana vs other weapons, that's very much overblown by Hollywood and other internet crap. Katana are nice weapons, and certainly have their place, but when you look at what sorts of things katana faced, they're very specialized weapons, designed mainly for use against unarmored opponents. Shields don't seem to have been popular for the samurai, so the things a western blade, for instance, had to defeat were pretty different than what a katana might. Katana aren't very versatile, realistically. They'll fail against an armored opponent, and aren't any faster than a good saber or a rapier, or even a longsword. Too, the guards are tiny, and considerably less useful than a western guard in a clinch. They're elegant and stylish, but I don't see them being inherently better or more versatile weapons than many other swords. Katana do NOT defeat thin plate or chain mail, as a general rule.

The variable temper point is silly as well, especially in a modern setting. It's certainly an elegant solution to maximizing the potential of certain types of steels, but the quality of modern steels has made the variable temper largely aesthetic. We love hamons, but a good through-tempered blade can be as strong or stronger than a variable tempered blade. I'd take through-tempered 3V over most, if not all, variable tempered blades.

The truth of the matter is, you'll be hard pressed to find an expert that actually DOES believe that the katana is the pinnacle of sword design. It's pretty well documented that it's not. For instance, when the Mongols invaded Japan in the 13th century, the samurai found that their swords were utterly inadequate against the tough leather armor of the invaders. They were forced to adopt simpler and broader temper lines to cope with that challenge. In fact, by the 15th century, the demands of war had forced Japanese swordsmiths away from the artistic nature of their golden age (the Kamakura period), and the advent of firearms cemented the demise of the katana and the way of the Japanese sword.

More, the experts I'm familiar with consider the koto blades to be the pinnacle of Japanese sword-craft, NOT the tachi that spawned the more familiar nihonto most of us call katana.

As for modern utility, a long sword, like a spear, isn't actually good in close quarters, such as the aforementioned hallway. And frankly, I'd take the spear any day. You're gonna be hard pressed to get past a spear in a hallway to the point where you'd even be able to use a katana. I'd also probably take a long knife, because there's a lot more flexibility with what you can do with it due to the shorter length. The spear is designed for quick thrusts, and a katana (or any other long sword) is too long to be able to generate force in a suitable direction for cutting the head off of a spear in a hallway. Try it sometime with a friend and some fake weapons. Your friend doesn't even have to be particularly trained. They'll figure it out quickly, and even a skilled swordsman will have a tough time closing on a spear-wielder in a hallway.

If swords were really that useful in modern combat, consider why use of such has almost entirely died off (although the knife still remains).

Don't get me wrong. I love swords, and prefer to make longer blades. And I would absolutely use one in a SHTF situation if for some reason I wasn't able to use my firearms.

But there's all kinds of fallacies in the above opinion. While sure, most opponents would be unarmored, a sword WILL be defeated by anything that will defeat a rifle bullet (duh). And reach matters. If you really think a sword is so great, I'm willing to bet you've never fought a spear-wielding opponent with one. In fact, if Musashi Miyamoto was actually defeated, his only defeat came at the hands of a staff-wielder. Skill levels being equal, in my experience a spear wielder will beat a swordsman most times. I've had several matches in my martial arts training using a sword against staff and spear both. It's VERY challenging to get close enough to hit your opponent, unless you can maneuver them into a situation in which you can use the length against them, or unless you're fast enough to grab the spear on the shaft without getting stabbed, which isn't an easy task.

My biggest issue with the aforementioned article is the lack of portability of a spear. You'd be a total fool to be toting a spear around in a post-apocalyptic situation, in my opinion, if only because of how much it would limit your mobility. Hard to climb or run with a spear, for one.

As for the "you can't shoot every bullet" argument, let's be honest. Sure, there are lots of bullets. But the odds against YOU having individual access to all of them are negligible at best. Most of those bullets and black powder weapons are going to be in the hands of other people, who may not mean you so well. Running out of ammunition is GOING to happen. Look at it now. You're right. There are billions of bullets out there. And yet it's almost impossible to find .22LR, and 9mm isn't much better. The ammo may be out there, but that doesn't mean that you have access to it.
 
Interesting conversation.

Japan's history is unique in that it was essentially a closed system, militarily. There was no centralized government that held actual power and one could argue that it's entire history until the Tokugawa era was one long civil war.

The bow was the main weapon of the actual samurai class that's true but requires considerable training to be effective. Until the Mongols arrived, battle was largely individual skirmishes and there was no fighting in formation. This was due to the fact that there was no standing army and each local leader provided his own small retinue of troops that would largely stick to their lord and fight with him.
The Japanese were stunned by the tactics of the Mongols...
These two mongol invasions in the late 13th C and they were pivotal in changing warfare and weapons of the samurai and the development of the ashigaru, the peasant mercenaries that filled the ranks.

The ashigaru were the closest thing to a standing army each daimyo had and they did not have horses so the sword shortened and changed to be carried edge up. As mentioned, the spear was the extension of the pointed stick that many peasants would be forced to use. This was because as part of the tax system, the peasants going to war were obliged to provide their own weapons and armour among other things.




More, the experts I'm familiar with consider the koto blades to be the pinnacle of Japanese sword-craft, NOT the tachi that spawned the more familiar nihonto most of us call katana.

What do you mean by this? Tachi are koto blades. They are the precursor to the uchigatana which developed into the katana..
 
True, managed to confuse myself because some of the earlier koto look pretty substantially different from modern nihonto. You're totally right that tachi are koto.
 
SHTF? First moves would either be dig in, bug out or buddy up. Any gathered and controlled source of arms will either prevail in a given territory or be targeted by others. Bugging out can include the digging in but an individual will eventually fail or join with others.

I am in a firearms state and would buddy up with a large contribution of bladed arms including a few spears. Ideally. I would hope to make it down the road to the local police building/bunker with a vehicle filled with arms. Truly all I have to offer and realize I would either be accepted or dispatched.

Bugging out? I would be moving with a minimum of arms. Firearms (a long one and a short one) with common ammunition, a small case of Mainstay and water filters. Space blankets and illumination, a minimum of sturdy clothing. Swords? Maybe one short one. Spears? I have a bundle of them but would take the shorter one instead of my cane. A moderate length fixed blade knife and a multitool.

Digging in, in situ? God help us all. Decent neighborhood, well water and the woods if I have to disappear and view what is going on from afar before buddying up. Staying put is actually my main plan. Let them come to me. Decent neighbors of like minds. Don't put me in charge.

long%20short%20004.jpg



long%20short%20002.jpg


Any firearm using common rounds such as .22lr, 9mm, .223, .308 and 12 guage would suit/last my lifetime (which might end pretty quick).

Cheers

GC
 
My biggest issue with the aforementioned article is the lack of portability of a spear. You'd be a total fool to be toting a spear around in a post-apocalyptic situation, in my opinion, if only because of how much it would limit your mobility. Hard to climb or run with a spear, for one.

Some did climb and run with weapons ;)

post-70-1315160641.jpg


I am sure I could climb with a fairly long arm, even a spear. Troops managed more than the flatlands carrying spears and shields.

I suppose I could sling my Ames axe as well :) The 10th managed.

post-55097-1315159769.jpg


http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/120576-ames-mountain-ice-axe/?

Cheers

GC
 
Not to dwell too long with religion, old testament David watched warriors to pick and only chose those that always had their spear in hand when stooping to drink water.

Rocks and sticks, that's where we really got started improvements for hunting and killing.

Cheers

GC
 
Nice! I was definitely thinking about those Heian blades. It's also interesting to see the changes in number of pins and pin location.
 
SHTF? First moves would either be dig in, bug out or buddy up. Any gathered and controlled source of arms will either prevail in a given territory or be targeted by others. Bugging out can include the digging in but an individual will eventually fail or join with others.

I am in a firearms state and would buddy up with a large contribution of bladed arms including a few spears. Ideally. I would hope to make it down the road to the local police building/bunker with a vehicle filled with arms. Truly all I have to offer and realize I would either be accepted or dispatched.

Bugging out? I would be moving with a minimum of arms. Firearms (a long one and a short one) with common ammunition, a small case of Mainstay and water filters. Space blankets and illumination, a minimum of sturdy clothing. Swords? Maybe one short one. Spears? I have a bundle of them but would take the shorter one instead of my cane. A moderate length fixed blade knife and a multitool.

Digging in, in situ? God help us all. Decent neighborhood, well water and the woods if I have to disappear and view what is going on from afar before buddying up. Staying put is actually my main plan. Let them come to me. Decent neighbors of like minds. Don't put me in charge.

long%20short%20004.jpg



long%20short%20002.jpg


Any firearm using common rounds such as .22lr, 9mm, .223, .308 and 12 guage would suit/last my lifetime (which might end pretty quick).

Cheers

GC

Horseclover, what is the black leaf shaped spear?
 
What's a "SHTF" situation?

Zombies? I think a katana would be okay. Depends if they're fast zombies or not, but I still think penetrating the brain with a spear would be quite a feat. If they're slow zombies, I don't think the range difference between a spear and a katana would mean too much, plus there's still the risk of getting the spear tip stuck in the skull and trying to pull it out while 2 other zed heads are grabbing for you.

Post-apocalyptic non-zombie world? Would I be using my weapon against wasteland bandits, mutant dogs, wild animals, what? For the wildlife, I'd agree that a spear would serve you better. Against other people, even if I were to assume that I'm unfortunate enough not to have any guns or ammunition available, it would be stupid to assume other people are just as screwed. I'd want a longbow as a minimum, and I'd have to learn to fletch my own arrows.

Uninvited intruder in my small apartment and I either A) Don't have a gun because of the prohibitive laws or B) Don't want to shoot through the walls/windows at a neighbor, I would think a short sword or machete would be just fine. Spears would be tough to use indoors unless you're fortunate enough to greet your uninvited guest just as he's going through your window(and doesn't see you coming). Not a full size sword, but a small one-handed one. I'm thinking the CRKT Hisshou or Shinbu would be about perfect for indoor use.
 
You know spears are dangerous for more than just their sharp parts, right? They're very effective blunt force weapons as well. Which means that you can probably slow down groups of zombies with a sweep, at the very least. And if you are using a polearm with a decently long and sharp head, you can generate a LOT more force with it than with most, if not all, swords. There's certainly something to be said for the efficacy of a spear, especially backed up with a long knife or two. I do love short swords, as you may have been able to tell by now. But a good spear is pretty darn cool.
 
SHTF? Martial law gets declared, curfews enforced, houses searched and all weapons seized "for public safety", Hell-raisers get free trips to internment camps and all their property seized, the sword might be saved for one's "last personal act of freedom" but it would probably be hard to commit hara-kiri while being tazed by Bubba the Storm Trooper.
 
Back
Top