-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is $300 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Sword fight and sharp edges?
- Thread starter blaughn
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2002
- Messages
- 400
Every sword used in honest-to-gosh battle would have seen edge to edge contact at one point or another. Generally you would have preferred to parry properly (there are Japanese swords with pieces of another blade's edge lodged in the mune; I saw a nice one at Usagiya a while ago), but if a hard stop would save your life, who'd avoid doing it? You'd chip out or bend the edge, but this was a common thing, and good swords are made to minimize the damage done by this sort of encounter. Ashi lines in Japanese hamon tend to contain cracks by extending "lines" of tough steel into the hardened edge; you'll also read things like Obata Kaiso's description of how samurai going into battle would pound their edges against mounds of sand to dull the edge for a measure of increased durability. And the Japanese certainly did parry with their blades, often using some variation on using the flats and back of the blade to redirect the opponent's weapon.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,026
edge to edge can work especially if the forte is dulled to allow edge-edge parries. Depends on the tradition of the martial style and of course the sword must match it. It's like asking an iaidoka to go out and try his hand at escrima to make him use a weapon unsuited to his style (though admittedly I don't know that much about the various styles of iaido, and where some actually might use the daisho together and thus have at least some basis for two-sword dueling styles...)
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 313
Agree with seno, some styles actually preferred edge on edge contact in the forte. Curved European saber styles used it commonly, however, the fortes were usually very or completely dull. If I remember correctly medieval European and Japanese swords were supposed to parry with the flat of the blade, however life tends to turn things funny in a scruffy situation.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,026
Some Renaissance longsword systems have an unsharpened forte and/or ricasso. A couple other systems do too. It makes a lot of sense biomechanically. But I have no idea of the ratio with sharpened forte to non...1917cutlass said:
That said, if you're using a one-handed sword and you have a shield... maybe not necessary. The Japanese styles, I believe, tended to TRY to get out of the way when unarmored (so would the European I think
) - many styles today stem from relatively peaceful times when combatants didn't wear armour regularly.Parrying with the back of the blade and the edge is known - kind of a the sword better than my face idea.
And as with most armoured combat with swords, European and Japanese, there was a good amount of grappling when in full battle regalia. However, there is recent discussion, on, again, Sword Forum International, that perhaps the unarmoured treatises are actually derived from usage AGAINST armour... though whether in tournaments (not trying to kill them) or in the battlefield (KILL!) is still being debated....
Another idea is that many types of sabers were used on horseback... hence the whole design in those cases is to have the latter end sharpened and with many tulwars to lock the wrist. There are accounts of sabers being almost blunt (say... in the Civil War... examine some cheap mass-production sabers) simply because they couldn't be bothered to put more than a narrow profile (not a real edge) on it.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 296
blaugn,
Yes, sword to sword contact (much less ede to edge) is very hard on the swords. But the sword is an object, a tool. If it breaks defending your life, it did it's job and was worth the money. Pick up something else and drive on.
As 1917 alludes to, maybe, fighting a five year old, I could keep that "don't parry with the edge" thing in my mind. I know that I cannot do it against any adult and determined opponent and I have a great sceptacism towards any historical writers that mention it.
And yes, generally, the sharper the edge, the less durable it will be in terms of that kind of shock ( there's a host of variables however)
As senobdec alludes to, a lot of the "Myth of the sword" stuff and the combat techniques emphazing hair popping sword sharpness come out of periods in history when battle had faded to duel and ceremony, in both Japan and Europe.
There is a tremedous difference between the edges of a sword used to cut through an unlucky peasant to prove how sharp a dedicated craftsman can get it and the edge of a sword used in a multi-combatent fight.
Particularly against hard armored opponets, the blunt force trauma of a full impact from a duller blade will be as effective, if not more so, than a partial impact slash or cut from a sharper blade. With the kind of impact dissolution offered by hard armor, it becomes all about the kinetic energy.
Still, this issue is as fraught with argument as the handgun caliber debates.
Take Care,
Jeff
Yes, sword to sword contact (much less ede to edge) is very hard on the swords. But the sword is an object, a tool. If it breaks defending your life, it did it's job and was worth the money. Pick up something else and drive on.
As 1917 alludes to, maybe, fighting a five year old, I could keep that "don't parry with the edge" thing in my mind. I know that I cannot do it against any adult and determined opponent and I have a great sceptacism towards any historical writers that mention it.
And yes, generally, the sharper the edge, the less durable it will be in terms of that kind of shock ( there's a host of variables however)
As senobdec alludes to, a lot of the "Myth of the sword" stuff and the combat techniques emphazing hair popping sword sharpness come out of periods in history when battle had faded to duel and ceremony, in both Japan and Europe.
There is a tremedous difference between the edges of a sword used to cut through an unlucky peasant to prove how sharp a dedicated craftsman can get it and the edge of a sword used in a multi-combatent fight.
Particularly against hard armored opponets, the blunt force trauma of a full impact from a duller blade will be as effective, if not more so, than a partial impact slash or cut from a sharper blade. With the kind of impact dissolution offered by hard armor, it becomes all about the kinetic energy.
Still, this issue is as fraught with argument as the handgun caliber debates.
Take Care,
Jeff
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 26,811
Well said gallowglass.
Gotta' question here,hopin' it's not off topic,now that I think about it,it's not.These,for want of a better or more knowledgeable word,Samurai/ collector sword's differential heat treatment is such that opponent's weapon striking spine or flats would impart no real damage,aside from cosmetic perhaps.Thanks!
Gotta' question here,hopin' it's not off topic,now that I think about it,it's not.These,for want of a better or more knowledgeable word,Samurai/ collector sword's differential heat treatment is such that opponent's weapon striking spine or flats would impart no real damage,aside from cosmetic perhaps.Thanks!
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,026
Yes on the first one certainly. The blade design, geometry and final polish all should work together towards a particular purpose.
Also quite right on the second... that's why they wouldn't, I presume, use swords first but polearms, projectile weapons, and even blunt maces/hammers and such. If you're riding a horse relatively fast and you smack someone with a mace they're going to be hurt and disoriented, full harness or not - a sword wouldn't be ideal for this - it's more of a compromise and handles better than say a mace or an axe generally but it can work.
Slightly off-topic: One of the myths is dull European sword-crowbars... quite untrue - a Victorian historian myth. Just look through some good arms and armour catalogues....
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2002
- Messages
- 400
Japanese iai training is focused on "draw kill sheath," but that wouldn't have been true on a battlefield. Can you imagine a bunch of guys fighting on a rolling plain somewhere, and each of them puts his sword back in its sheath while there are still enemies around him? There are lots of varieties of Japanese swordsmanship, and a good number of them are not particularly batto/iai centric. Almost every kenjutsu style will teach kata focused around a semi-protracted swordfight (i.e., fighters trade blows, rather than either "killing" the other coming right off the bat).
Of course, you wouldn't have used a sword on a battlefield if you had a good polearm, but the inadequacy of any swordfighting style that doesn't include parries and doesn't use shields is pretty apparent on the face of it.
Of course, you wouldn't have used a sword on a battlefield if you had a good polearm, but the inadequacy of any swordfighting style that doesn't include parries and doesn't use shields is pretty apparent on the face of it.
yumi and yari(sp?) were the samurai battle field weapon of choice. that is bow and spear. the katana contained the soul of the samurai ,or feudal lord, and was seldom drawn .by the 1600s kenjitsu had reached irs height, but other weapons based japanese forms were not necessarily practiced by samurai.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 1999
- Messages
- 6,117
From the perspective of someone trained in western fencing, Japanese Kendo doesn't use parrying. The kendo ideal is to hit the other guy and avoid getting hit yourself, not to play around with his blade. Some of this is the relative value placed on not getting touched with a sword. In fencing it might be said that if you do something suicidal and there is a simultaneous hit you automatically lose. If someone attacks you with his sword and rather than deflect his attack you just stick him back, you lose. If someone stands there with his sword pointing at you and you attack him without avoiding his point you also lose. It doesn't even matter if you stick the other guy more seriously than he sticks you, you lose if you allow yourself to be stuck (or hit in the case of a sabre) without any effort at avoiding injury. When you fence you score by the "touches".
The contrast is dramatic. A friend went from fencing to Kendo. He learned all of these striking techniques and ways to attack. He asked the master when they would learn the equivalent of parry-riposte technique and the master said you just don't do that in Kendo. In Kendo you are more involved in getting the jump on the other guy. It is more about attack and strike. Some of the technique that might be classified as "defensive" would fit into the fencing concept as stop-cuts or stop-thrusts. As someone attacks you hit him before he hits you. In fencing you can only get points for this if after your cut or thrust you deflect or avoid his blade.
The real issue isn't so much how does a chopping sword survive impacts with another sword. The question is how does it survive impact against armor and shields. I don't think that a sharp edge reduces blade durability, but an overly thin bevel and an overly hard blade may. The real trick is to have the body of the blade RC down in the 40's. If you have high quality steel of sufficient softness the only problem with a sharp edge is if it folds over and then fails with repeated indention. If you have a heavy sword you can hope to break bones with a dull edge. If you have a light sword like a saber it isn't going to work well against armor unless you use the point. With a partially armored opponent you use the speed of the light blade to pick exposed targets. You use the curvature of the blade to make long deep slashing cuts rather than bone breaking chops. In combat the opponents are coming together in mobs and attack is more the tactic seen than standing and parrying. If you get cute duelling with one guy his buddy is going to take you from the side. You are mostly going to cut and move as fast as you can. Parrying is for duelists.
The contrast is dramatic. A friend went from fencing to Kendo. He learned all of these striking techniques and ways to attack. He asked the master when they would learn the equivalent of parry-riposte technique and the master said you just don't do that in Kendo. In Kendo you are more involved in getting the jump on the other guy. It is more about attack and strike. Some of the technique that might be classified as "defensive" would fit into the fencing concept as stop-cuts or stop-thrusts. As someone attacks you hit him before he hits you. In fencing you can only get points for this if after your cut or thrust you deflect or avoid his blade.
The real issue isn't so much how does a chopping sword survive impacts with another sword. The question is how does it survive impact against armor and shields. I don't think that a sharp edge reduces blade durability, but an overly thin bevel and an overly hard blade may. The real trick is to have the body of the blade RC down in the 40's. If you have high quality steel of sufficient softness the only problem with a sharp edge is if it folds over and then fails with repeated indention. If you have a heavy sword you can hope to break bones with a dull edge. If you have a light sword like a saber it isn't going to work well against armor unless you use the point. With a partially armored opponent you use the speed of the light blade to pick exposed targets. You use the curvature of the blade to make long deep slashing cuts rather than bone breaking chops. In combat the opponents are coming together in mobs and attack is more the tactic seen than standing and parrying. If you get cute duelling with one guy his buddy is going to take you from the side. You are mostly going to cut and move as fast as you can. Parrying is for duelists.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2002
- Messages
- 400
Spun 1 said:
Hello,
You're right, swords probably wouldn't be drawn until the bow was out of arrows and the yari or perhaps naginata was broken. But that doesn't mean that swords weren't drawn in battle. Also, samurai doesn't mean "feudal lord," and swords were drawn in battle. You'd be hard pressed to fire an arrow into an enemy if he were 2 feet in front of you. It'd be similarly difficult to use a polearm effectively. The "soul of the samurai" thing was probably more a ritual belief than anything embraced by actual fighters - why give so much stature to a weapon that's functionally inferior to other field weapons?
As to historical sword tactics, let me refer you to someone with actual kenjutsu credentials: http://www.aikidojournal.com/?id=1076. Not the writer of the article, but Mr. Threadgill's reply further down. Kendo is NOT representative of actual Japanese sword arts.
In any case, the Japanese sword was certainly designed to withstand edge impacts. The use of niku, and ashi in the hamon all speak to a desire on the smith's part to include durability and resistance to edge failure in the final sword. As to legendary sharpness, I've never come across any really convincing evidence that Japanese blades have remarkably superior edges. I've seen people do mighty impressive things with modern recreations of Medieval swords - enough tatami on the floor to impress even the most vocal advocate of Japanese blades.
:foot: :thumbup: much respect to you Knife saber, i bow to your knowlege ,yet i tend to disagree about some things.samurai does not mean feudal lord but that is essentionally who they were by 200-300 years after their inception as
mercenaries.as ruling class they commanded vassals in battle. from the early
merc times the samurai class became known as calvary fighters and yari were more effective in a calvary charge the samurai engaged in.(ther is some historical contention to this,some scholars claiming the samurai foght on foot as horses of th e day wre too smsll.
i do not think you are wrong .sir just perhaps that we come from different schools of thought on the matter.neither do i contend that the katana was never drawn in battle, just that public perception is skewed.
i have nothing but respect for you sir, or maam
Spun 1
-------------------------------
out goes the lights in goes my knife
pull out his life;
consider that bastard dead
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2002
- Messages
- 400
It's all good, Spun 1.
Samurai were a caste, not much different from merchants, or doctors. They served daimyo (several of whom were probably from the samurai class). There were samurai accountants, too. Here's a nice reference (actual subject is female samurai, but there's a lot of good background material): http://www2.una.edu/Takeuchi/DrT_Jpn_Culture_files/Nihon_to_files/Female_samurai.htm
And, just fyi, it's not "sir" or "ma'am." It's "bub."
Samurai were a caste, not much different from merchants, or doctors. They served daimyo (several of whom were probably from the samurai class). There were samurai accountants, too. Here's a nice reference (actual subject is female samurai, but there's a lot of good background material): http://www2.una.edu/Takeuchi/DrT_Jpn_Culture_files/Nihon_to_files/Female_samurai.htm
And, just fyi, it's not "sir" or "ma'am." It's "bub."
Samurai carried two swords, a short sword and a long sword.
For the most part they did not, would not use these swords to parry, but rather to end the fight with one cut.
Samurai carried a different sword into battle (than the two they wore), with the expectation that one battle would ruin the blade and require reforging.
I can't document it, but, I have the sense that the working blades of European warriors regularly went back to the smith to have the edge reconstructed with hammer, anvil and fire.
For the most part they did not, would not use these swords to parry, but rather to end the fight with one cut.
Samurai carried a different sword into battle (than the two they wore), with the expectation that one battle would ruin the blade and require reforging.
I can't document it, but, I have the sense that the working blades of European warriors regularly went back to the smith to have the edge reconstructed with hammer, anvil and fire.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 2,026
Ken Cox said:
That seems amazingly inefficient. Not disputing it's historical accuracy, but why reforge and repair (losing steel and carbon content in the process) when reprofiling would work as well from the damage typically taken (say if you bash someone's helmet accidentally instead of getting into the neck joint). If it's so damaged it requires reforging (i.e. completely unuseable/snapped/broken) then I see no reason not to.... not sure how well it would work though.
Not so sure on the whole samurai "battle vs society sword" thing either, though certainly daisho became a commonly known symbol of caste in the Tokugawa era and it certainly makes sense for the very fancy samples - especially some of the later tachi.... hum... just musing.
I'll just point here for now: the SPATHA articles http://forums.swordforum.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=32
and to a couple threads regarding armoured combat and efficiency of various weapons....
Piercing ability against armour?
Could a sword cut through a helmet?
Why didn't samurai use shields?
The oft-repeated Japanese vs European or samurai vs knight thread
Efficacy plate armour against spear
Could a samurai sword cut through samurai armour?
Tachi vs katana - purpose?
Edge vs edge:
Edge vs edge?
Parrying, edge, and protection?
Edge vs edge damage - a metallurgical and physical analysis
Why edge to edge parrying - historical or not?
Edge to edge damage in the movies? Say it isn't so!
Striking the secondary node can break blades?
the way i was always told was that samurai swords are tempered differently thru-out the blade.
hardening the edge and leaving the back of the sword soft, to withstand impact of blows.
also, kinda like the sandwich method cold steel uses on their san mai III
some samurai swords used two different type of steel. a hard inner core for the edge and then it was surrounded by a thick softer sides. to withstand blows.
-edit-
i hope it makes sense and i dont sound stupid =-P
hardening the edge and leaving the back of the sword soft, to withstand impact of blows.
also, kinda like the sandwich method cold steel uses on their san mai III
some samurai swords used two different type of steel. a hard inner core for the edge and then it was surrounded by a thick softer sides. to withstand blows.
-edit-
i hope it makes sense and i dont sound stupid =-P