|
Post by genocideseth on Jun 10, 2009 17:48:38 GMT
Trust me, this is gonna disprove the saying "The only dumb question is one that is not asked". If a swordsman (During the Feudal Era) did not wish to kill, what would he use? I know he did not use a reverse blade... But is there a historical example of something similar? I need this for something I am working on.
And something preferably steel...
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jun 10, 2009 17:55:12 GMT
There's often talk in this or that samurai drama of using the back of the blade so as to not kill the other person...but ultimately I'm sure they just killed them. Twas a daily part of life back then, I doubt many thought much of it...
Otherwise, options are limited to wooden weapons. Even a steel pole will kill pretty quickly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2009 18:02:10 GMT
If they didn't want to kill, I think a jutte or the like is what they used. Also jujutsu techniques, probably. Also, random- wooden weapons can kill easily, too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2009 18:06:29 GMT
Well believe it or not, wooden weapons were common, often for the purpose of a dual to prove skill rather then for war or honor. Reading about Musashi in particular, it seems almost every one of his duals was faught with a wood bokken. Even the famus fight with Kojiro who was using a shinken, Musashi used a wood weapon, or sorts. There are also arresting type techniques where you get the person in a bad position with your blade. Think something like having a gut up to someone's head, they are not going to try something. I think these mostly came about during the Meji era though. I would imagine though, depending on the skill, the warrior could have chosen to only wound the person, making a bad cut someplace, or using the tsuka to beat them over the head. hope that helps some.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jun 10, 2009 18:11:29 GMT
Also, random- wooden weapons can kill easily, too. Never said they couldn't, just a lot easier not to with wood. Forgot about the jutte/jitte; how old a weapon is that, anyway? I think Meiji sounds about right... Binding is an option, and yeah, there was also the wound, but that's messy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2009 18:16:44 GMT
Also, random- wooden weapons can kill easily, too. Never said they couldn't, just a lot easier not to with wood. Forgot about the jutte/jitte; how old a weapon is that, anyway? I think Meiji sounds about right... Binding is an option, and yeah, there was also the wound, but that's messy. Yeah, I also think meiji, but I don't know much. Anyway, I think most non-killing weapons were in use of the police, and samurai usually killed. So try police in that time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2009 18:18:04 GMT
The jutte were intreduced in mid-edo period, around 1700~ or so.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jun 10, 2009 18:27:12 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2009 18:27:41 GMT
Question is, why WOULDN'T he want to kill his opponent? As others have said, that was the way of life back then...I mean, that was the purpose of a fight if there were weapons involved.
If someone didn't want to kill the other, use fists.
|
|
|
Post by genocideseth on Jun 10, 2009 18:32:34 GMT
Thanks guys! I found something. It is called a "Tekkan". Roughly a sword shape and made of iron. And thanks Random. +1 to you.
And why someone would not want to kill someone? Well, this is for a story, and he is a foreigner not used to this type of lifestyle. He does not choose to make confrontation, and in fact, tries avoid it. But he needs to protect himself. And yah....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2009 21:33:57 GMT
What about tsuka-ate?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2009 22:10:40 GMT
I think a Samurai, when not intending to kill his opponent, chopped off an arm or a legg instead of the head.
IMPO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2009 16:15:40 GMT
Just asking but I'd venture a guess saying that a samurai would be able to fight with out a weapon as well as with a weapon? No weapon required?
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Jun 11, 2009 16:59:27 GMT
I think a Samurai, when not intending to kill his opponent, chopped off an arm or a legg instead of the head. IMPO Lopping off an arm or a leg, back then with what medical options were avalible, almost as good as stright up killing the guy, he will most likely die in moments anyway. Owtch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2009 17:02:23 GMT
But then we would die of poor medical treatment, not by the Samurai. ^^
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2009 1:28:00 GMT
Trust me, this is gonna disprove the saying "The only dumb question is one that is not asked". If a swordsman (During the Feudal Era) did not wish to kill, what would he use? I know he did not use a reverse blade... But is there a historical example of something similar? The swordsman would use a blade forged by Masamune I should think... "Long ago, two swordsmiths met near a small stream; Masamune and his student Muramasa. Each of them brought one of their finest blades. To show his teacher the quality of his craft Muramasa placed his blade into the stream, and as they both watched drifting cherry blossoms were neatly cut in two. He held his blade up, proud of his work. Masamune then placed his blade into the stream. As both watched, the cherry blossoms that floated past avoided the blade altogether. A Buddhist monk watching the two of them commented upon what he had witnessed: "The first of the swords was by all accounts a fine sword, however it is a blood thirsty blade, as it does not discriminate as to what it will cut. It may just as well be cutting down butterflies as severing heads. The second was by far the finer of the two, as it does not needlessly cut that which is undeserving." ;D
|
|