European swords vs Asian (esp Japanese katanas)

[Darth Gojira]

Intersting anecdote: Sal-ad-din and Richard "Lionheart" were trying to impess each other while doing a peace treaty. The Briton used his broadsword to slice an iron bar in half. The Kurd countered by slicing a pillow in half with a scimitar. Odd, very odd. I think it's mostly apocryphal(sp) but you never know.....
Now, unless the Crusaders had silk armor like the Mongols........

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

It's my understanding that the Japanese style relied on making the first move, and when the opponent moved to block it, they would then change and deal a fatal blow... Or that was the theory behind it.

It was a little different, actually. In mano a mano duels between Bushi or Ronin, the idea was to let your opponent make the first move. The instant he made a move, you deal the death blow.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I still take the knight over the ninja.

Now, hold on there a minute, Queeb. You might take the knight over the Samurai, but the Shinobi is a whole different kettle of fish.

Basically, whereas the shinobi no mono aren't quite what cinema has distorted their image to be, they were the SPECWAR operators of their day. Basically, they used all the techniques and tools the Samurai would've used if not for Bushido. We're talking everything from biotoxins to disguise and camouflage to firearms to explosives.

A knight might stand a good chance of defeating a samurai in open combat... but against a shinobi, there wouldn't be open combat.

[Cyborg Stan]

Editorial: Avoiding the "Commonplace" in Historical Martial Arts
http://www.thearma.org/essays/CommonPlace.htm
(Context : Obviously, simply detailing common myths.)

Everybody "knows" that the katana is the most metallurgically sophisticated sword ever made, and that a knight in full armor would barely be able to stand up if he fell over because of its weight. It is well-known that a typical knight's sword weighed around ten or twenty pounds, and was a far clumsier weapon than its oriental counterparts. It is long-established fact that the English Longbow was the most powerful bow ever made, and hastened the downfall of heavy cavalry on the medieval battlefield.

There Is No "Best Sword" : If there were no firearms, they'd still be designing new swords
http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm
(Context : Describes the changes in swords in reaction to the spread of plate armor.)

Light and flat cutting blades were abandoned. The sword profile with a blade wide at the top and tapering very sharply, stayed pretty much the same. However, the cross-section became a thick, flattened diamond, and the sword became quite rigid. Weight varied a great deal. Some blades stayed light, weighing 2 to 3 pounds, while others went upwards of 5 pounds. These heavy swords became nothing but sharpened bars of steel. Both the heavy and the light versions were attempts to punch through the armor, and it could be done if the blow was heavy and square. In a slightly off-center blow, there was a chance the sword would slide into a crevice or chink and wound the man. And the heavy swords also tried to "break" the armor by sheer weight and force.

This was the last attempt of the sword to overcome armor and that fight was abandoned. There was simply no way that a sword was going to cut through steel plate. Axes, maces and war hammers became the weapons of armored combat.

Only a 2 to 3 pound sword should be considered for modern use; nothing heavier will achieve the velocity needed, nor will a heavier sword maneuver, parry or recover fast enough. It should be relatively short and quite sharp and straight enough for a serious thrust. The straight wakizashi sold as a "ninja" sword, the hanger or European hunting sword, and shorter 19th century foot officers swords are all useful models, but 12-pound knightly swords? Never.

A few other things :

We should be able to find a few left over 60 lbers if they ever existed. Quite a few swords still exist today in museums and private collectors, such a large sword should draw a bit of attention.

We should be able to see illustrations of this sword in the fighting manuals of the period. It wouldn't be too hard to miss - the blade itself is wide as your hand spread out, and would be nearly as tall as it's user - or taller. (Such a massive blade would require the wielder to spread out his legs so he doesn't use his balance.)

While a knight would be far better trained and physically more fit than most of the people living today, he wouldn't be a magnitude stronger. Swinging a 60 lbs of weight a few feet from the body fast enough to be dangerous to plate armor would severely unbalance anybody. Secondly, you can see plate armor yourself - the knight would have to fit inside of that.

[LadyTevar]

Here's a page from Raven Armoury.

Claymores

Claymore 1. Traditional.

Length 52"
Weight 4 lbs
Price £950

Claymore 2.
Length 52"
Weight 4 lbs
Price £950

Shit eh? I have no real issues doing weights etc, but this sword was fucking insane. So heavy as to be ridiculous. It was most likely one of the greatswords - those were damn stupid.

Or a piss-poor substitute... many people have 'replica' swords that are made more for display than for actual use. Display swords often are heavier than normal.

[LadyTevar]

You can see as much judging by their weight; If it doesn't weigh over 10 lbs. (and those are TRAINING swords,) then it's not worth fighting with.

*snip*

One, the swords weighed anywhere from 40-60 lbs.

WTF? What are you smoking? Historically, swords did not weigh over 4 lbs. a 60 lbs sword would be unswingable. You'd fall over, or leave a hole the size of Rhode Island in your defense.

Hmm... It seems we're talking about two different kinds of swords, here. You are talking about the traditional "broadsword," which we today would associate more along the lines of a fencing foil or a rapier. I was referring to medieval European double-handed knightswords.

As for the iron calculations, you forgot to take into account that the hilts and pommels were solid iron, too. That tacks on between 5-8 lbs.

Queeb? You're still smoking.

The hilts were wood. The pommel may or may not have been an iron counterweight, but it would have only weighed about 6oz per 1lb of sword... and as mentioned before, even a Flamberg, 6ft long and made to cut the heads off spears, didn't weigh more than 8lbs tops.

[LadyTevar]

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/sh ... ights.html

The heaviest sword weighs about 2 lb/ft, the swords you propose are realistic would weigh about 10-12 lb/ft, or 5 to 6 times heavier. In short, you have to stop sniffing glue.

Again, you're talking basket-hilt swords, I'm talking double-handed knightswords. Two TOTALLY different endeavors, friend.

Here, you're right. There is a big difference between how you HOLD a baskethilt (one hand) and how you hold a 'knightsword' (one-&-ahalf or two hand).

And yes, the baskethilt would be lighter... by about 2 lbs, since I've handled a 'knightsword' as you call it, twohanded, 5'5' long with a pommel nut, and little me, 5'7 WOMAN, could swing it with only slight problems. It was only 6-8lbs, after all......

[Batman]

Again, you're talking basket-hilt swords, I'm talking double-handed knightswords. Two TOTALLY different endeavors, friend.

Here, you're right. There is a big difference between how you HOLD a baskethilt (one hand) and how you hold a 'knightsword' (one-&-ahalf or two hand).

And yes, the baskethilt would be lighter... by about 2 lbs, since I've handled a 'knightsword' as you call it, twohanded, 5'5' long with a pommel nut, and little me, 5'7 WOMAN, could swing it with only slight problems. It was only 6-8lbs, after all......

LadyTevar,
even if it weren't for your wonderful CatWoman impersonation, I'd have to love you for that. Anybody claiming a Zweihänder that was NOT purely decorative/ceremonial weighing more than 10lbs may feel free to beat me over the head with it.

[Keevan_Colton]

To give you an idea of exactly how light such weapons are...I've faced a lass who was just over 5' and lightly built armed with a bastard sword and wielding it with relative ease....
I myself have had the chance to spar wielding a pair of two handed swords....and while it was taxing to use two at once, it's by no means impossible...to use one is of course far simpler.....

[Mark S]

It's interesting. I've been watching this television program where they take modern day soldiers, mounted police officers and whatnot and make them live and train like Legionars or Knights or Vikings. They have historical combat experts and all that. Anyway, the episode regarding medivel knights taught these guys longsword combat techniques from a 15th century manual on the subject and it was anything but slow and cumbersome. They did not simply slash and poke at each other, but had as many moves where they were holding the blade with both hands and slamming the pummel into the guys head as anything else. I don't think they ever simply held and swung the weapon the way you typically see.

[Keevan_Colton]

It's interesting. I've been watching this television program where they take modern day soldiers, mounted police officers and whatnot and make them live and train like Legionars or Knights or Vikings. They have historical combat experts and all that. Anyway, the episode regarding medivel knights taught these guys longsword combat techniques from a 15th century manual on the subject and it was anything but slow and cumbersome. They did not simply slash and poke at each other, but had as many moves where they were holding the blade with both hands and slamming the pummel into the guys head as anything else. I don't think they ever simply held and swung the weapon the way you typically see.

I know...I've 5 years of training in such things.

[Queeb Salaron]

Here, you're right. There is a big difference between how you HOLD a baskethilt (one hand) and how you hold a 'knightsword' (one-&-ahalf or two hand).

...yep...

And yes, the baskethilt would be lighter... by about 2 lbs, since I've handled a 'knightsword' as you call it, twohanded, 5'5' long with a pommel nut, and little me, 5'7 WOMAN, could swing it with only slight problems. It was only 6-8lbs, after all......

First, I've had my ass kicked by many a woman. The best swordsperson (gotta be PC) I know is a woman. Gender doesn't matter when swords are light.

But what I'm telling you is that a 6-8 lbs sword doesn't stand up in combat. I'm curious to know what kind of sword this was. Was it decorative?

[Queeb Salaron]

To give you an idea of exactly how light such weapons are...I've faced a lass who was just over 5' and lightly built armed with a bastard sword and wielding it with relative ease....
I myself have had the chance to spar wielding a pair of two handed swords....and while it was taxing to use two at once, it's by no means impossible...to use one is of course far simpler.....

Two at once? Badass.

[Beowulf]

But what I'm telling you is that a 6-8 lbs sword doesn't stand up in combat. I'm curious to know what kind of sword this was. Was it decorative?

Or maybe you just haven't found a light sword that's made out of good quality, and properly heat treated steel. http://forums.swordforum.com is a good site for discussing swords.

[LadyTevar]

Here, you're right. There is a big difference between how you HOLD a baskethilt (one hand) and how you hold a 'knightsword' (one-&-ahalf or two hand).

...yep...

And yes, the baskethilt would be lighter... by about 2 lbs, since I've handled a 'knightsword' as you call it, twohanded, 5'5' long with a pommel nut, and little me, 5'7 WOMAN, could swing it with only slight problems. It was only 6-8lbs, after all......

First, I've had my ass kicked by many a woman. The best swordsperson (gotta be PC) I know is a woman. Gender doesn't matter when swords are light.

But what I'm telling you is that a 6-8 lbs sword doesn't stand up in combat. I'm curious to know what kind of sword this was. Was it decorative?

Fuck no, it wasn't decorative! The maker took the sword, held it up over a piece of 14g steel balanced on two bricks, and just by DROPPING the sword point first, it went THROUGH the steel, with no damage to the blade!! So... unless you consider that 'decorative'........

[Keevan_Colton]

To give you an idea of exactly how light such weapons are...I've faced a lass who was just over 5' and lightly built armed with a bastard sword and wielding it with relative ease....
I myself have had the chance to spar wielding a pair of two handed swords....and while it was taxing to use two at once, it's by no means impossible...to use one is of course far simpler.....

Two at once? Badass.

*laughs* To be honest I was showing off a bit at the time....though I do have one friend that can wield them paired with no real difficulty....he's 6'5 so its not so remarkable

[LadyTevar]

To give you an idea of exactly how light such weapons are...I've faced a lass who was just over 5' and lightly built armed with a bastard sword and wielding it with relative ease....
I myself have had the chance to spar wielding a pair of two handed swords....and while it was taxing to use two at once, it's by no means impossible...to use one is of course far simpler.....

Two at once? Badass.

*laughs* To be honest I was showing off a bit at the time....though I do have one friend that can wield them paired with no real difficulty....he's 6'5 so its not so remarkable

I've seen a 5'5 man weilding two 3' swords in combat. Forentine style isn't that hard to learn, just hard to master. I've toyed with it, but I'm horrible at it. The second sword is mainly for parrying, although there is the occassional attack of opportunity that can be made.

[Keevan_Colton]

*laughs* To be honest I was showing off a bit at the time....though I do have one friend that can wield them paired with no real difficulty....he's 6'5 so its not so remarkable

I've seen a 5'5 man weilding two 3' swords in combat. Forentine style isn't that hard to learn, just hard to master. I've toyed with it, but I'm horrible at it. The second sword is mainly for parrying, although there is the occassional attack of opportunity that can be made.

Personally I've found it very amusing to use a bastardized version of florentine with paired thrusting axes or hatchets.....it can really put someone off.
The rather large chap in question was actually able to run through some Kali knife/stick fighting routines with them.
[edit] fixed quotes.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I've tried nito-ryu style (florentine) with a ninjato and dai-ninjato (katana-legth blade instead of wakizashi-length). It's not as difficult with Japanese swords as it is with European blades, but I'd still rather keep the other hand free for other uses.

[LadyTevar]

I've tried nito-ryu style (florentine) with a ninjato and dai-ninjato (katana-legth blade instead of wakizashi-length). It's not as difficult with Japanese swords as it is with European blades, but I'd still rather keep the other hand free for other uses.

Some of the most interesting fights to watch are the 'wireweinies' or Fencers in the SCA. Sword and dagger, sword and buckler, sword and cape, sword and mug of ale.....


And they're such HAMS about it!

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I think I'd sort of prefer wakizashi and .45, but then again you can't "quaff" a .45 during a dramatic pause in a life-and-death fight... so much less, you know... impressive.

[Keevan_Colton]

I think the most amusing combination I've used sparring was a simple shinai and a can of coke....I was helping to demonstrate "moping" the term we used for fighting styles where you deliberately avoid looking at your opponent....while continuing to parry my sparring partners blows I stood, relaxed, drinking the can of coke....

[Raptor 597]

It's stabbing vs slashing. With a long enough sword, stabbing(european) offers advantages over the slashing(katana). Draw your weapon over your head or to your side to make the fatal slash, and you're exposed for a quick poke from a far less skilled and trained euro footslogger.

You can stab with a Japanese sword, I know. But it's not normally how they're used.

(edit) I voted both, BTW. Stab vs slash has been going on for about as long as there have been swords, with no clear winner.

Actually, some versions(very few) can be used to stab once for a kill blow. But your center of balance is off and thrusting lacks protection. It could be used but very vunerably. Though some historians have said or believe knights with steady steeds have stabbed into foot soldiers. It takes quite awhile to pull back in so it's a one chancer.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I should also like to point out, Frank, that there's a big difference between what you see a guy in a film doing with a katana and the primary operating principle behind kenjutsu.

First time for everything, let me try to do a little diagram here:

_|_|_
_|_|_
| |

I don't know if that came out the way it looks as I typed it, but it's supposed to look like a Tic-Tac-Toe square. Superimpose that square with the center-square over your opponent's center of mass. In kenjutsu, you always want the center of your blade as level as possible with that center-square, and the tip of your blade pointed at his face. The operating principle behind kenjutsu is to keep your blade as close to this aim as possible. Thus, no wide strikes. Economy of movement.

Also, the samurai typically wore armored bracers as part of their yoroi (suit of armor) -- an overhead strike did not see the bushi with his elbows outspread (except possibly in some schools... those schools, I imagine, died off rather quickly.) but instead saw the samurai leading the strike from overhead with his left hand, using the bracer on his left arm to deflect any blow that might come in, while using footwork and body-angling to add to this deflection effect and move the lower body out of the arc of the strike.