Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 15:57:39 GMT
brotherbanzai and I began a discussion about sword dynamics in his post "Reimagining A Legend." /index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=10890&page=1#175183 What I would like to do here is have a more detailed discussion about this with other members contributing their thoughts, pics of sword and why they think certain swords handle certain ways. To start we can create some pretty broad categories and see which types of swords full into them. Here are my thoughts on what types of categories we have. 1 Dedicated Cutting Swords 2 Cut and Thrust Swords 3 Thrusting Swords 4 Chopping Swords 5 Hybrid / Miscellaneous Swords
To me these categories could be defined as follows: 1. Cutting Swords: These would be swords that have been designed primarily as cutting/slashing/slicing weapons with limited thrusting ability. I think a few examples would be - the Katana (which many consider to be the ultimate cutting sword), the Miao Dao - Chinese Corn Leaf Saber, the classic Calvary Saber, the Cutlass, the Shamshir/Scimitar.... These are a few examples that come to my mind. 2. Cut and Thrust Swords: These swords attempt to balance cutting and thrusting ability. The first example that comes to my mind is the Jian (Chinese straight sword), several Oakeshott types fall into this category. 3. Thrusting Swords: These swords are designed primarily for thrusting with limited cutting ability. The European Ecot comes to mind as my understanding is that this particular blade was designed almost solely for piercing metal armor. 4. Chopping Swords: These are cutting swords with a very characteristic "weight forward" balance. This means the swords own weight and handling characteristics provide much of the cutting force for this type. Examples would include the Niu Wei Dao (Oxtail Dao, the classic Chinese Broadsword), and the European Falchion or Messer. 5. Hybrid / Miscellaneous: This, of course, would be the category for swords that don't fit in the others as the particular dynamics of the blade design do not lend themselves to ease of categorization. These are just my thoughts to begin this conversation, and since I am far from an expert I may very well have mis-categorized some of the swords I have mentioned. At which point, please enlighten me as to why a particular sword would belong in another category. What I would like to see happen in this discussion is for various members to post their swords and explain what about the dynamics of a particular swords design and handling makes if fit a particular category of dynamics.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jul 11, 2009 20:21:00 GMT
Seems to me like a pretty good categorization to me, I can't find much to differ on. I find swords with broad, thin blades tend to perform better in the cut, yet suffer in a thrust, whereas the narrow, hmm...don't really want to say "beefier" or even "thicker," but more often than not they tend to be "reinforced" to an extent...anyway, those swords tend to perform better on the thrust than the cut. However, many of these "cutting-oriented" swords are quite capable of effective thrusts, likewise a good many "thrust-oriented" swords can cut, though your example of the ecot...probably not. I have an old bayonet, a French Gras model, dated 1879 (I think the pattern started in '77? [hi to Jonathan Hopkins ]) that has a sort of...gah, I can't remember the word for it...but it's primarily triangular in cross-section, with a horizontal "bar" topping the "spine," which is intended to reinforce the blade for thrusts (it is a bayonet, after all) however the last few inches feature a dramatic taper into a double-edge, which presumably allowed for some tip-cuts when not on the rifle (old bayonets having a tendency to be short swords in the practical definition more often than not) so while it's very good at stabby-pokey, it could probably pull off a good gut-cut, too. Likewise many varieties of bayonet are much broader blades, that while primarily thrust, could cut well, too. However...cutting with a rapier and stabbing with a (I don't know my oakeshott types nearly as well as I used to, but let's fill in the one that is thin in cross-section, with little profile taper, broad of blade, and generally bearing a forward point of balance, say 6"+) won't yield the BEST results. Totally agree on the chopper category. The first thing I think of when I think "brutal chopper" is the da dao. What a monster that thing is. I don't think one will be doing much precision cutting work with that one, but it'll make one man two half-men pretty easily, I imagine. The tip may possibly allow for a thrust...but I wouldn't weigh my chances. No, I'd just bury it in their forehead like it was meant to be. I think the biggest indicator, besides blade shape/geometry, is weight and balance point. It's just tough to get the point control needed for an accurate thrust out of a 2.5-3 pound sword that balances 5-7 inches down its blade, and equally difficult to gain the momentum for a good cut/chop in a 1-1.5 pound blade that balances at the hilt. Not that neither can be done, it just won't be as easy as the other way around. Similarly, the method for putting a rapier in a person's forehead differs somewhat from putting a falchion in the same place. I tend to prefer the cut-and-thrust/hybrid swords, myself. I also happen to feel that a shinogi-zukuri katana can sort of be squeezed into this category, sori perhaps being influential (a straighter kat would be peachy in a thrust, a curvy one would take a slightly different set of movements...) in this, but I'd probably avoid thrusting with a shobu, or even an o-kissaki shinogi-zukuri. u-no-kubi, maybe thrustworthy, kogarasu-maru? Hmm...probably. Shamshir in a thrust? Well, if you like thrusting from a line perpendicular to the direction your facing... Me, I'll just sweep across your stomach and try to catch it as it falls out. Other than those thoughts, I'd say you've got the nail right on its head. Pretty fair breakdown of general concepts if you ask me. Surprised this topic hasn't seen more activity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 20:40:25 GMT
Thanks for your thoughts random.
I actually wasn't certain about how to classify the katana actually. I'm a Chinese sword guy just now venturing into the darkside of Euro blades, but Japanese swords while I find several very pretty have never really called to me. Therefore a lack of experience with Japanese swords does complicate the process of trying to classify them. I've seen people do straight thrust with katana, it just strikes me that this particular blade design is much better suited to slicing than thrusting. The question that needs explored then is why? What about the katana makes it more of a dedicated cutting sword?
I can do a straight "Ci" thrust with an Ox tail Dao, but the Jian is much better for that movement. However when performing some of the wheeling circling chops of Chinese Martial Arts, the Dao blade really shines as the forward balance of the swords weight almost leads one through the movements. The Jian and Dao are setup to have similar points of balance yet handle completely differently. In the Jian the weight center is much closer to the hand, in the Dao the weight is further out. Therefore you get two completely different classifications of sword. Though well made examples of both have similar weights and balance points.
So folks, what other swords fit these categories and why?
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jul 11, 2009 21:37:18 GMT
I think I'm in the same boat as you, I only really know much of anything about one very small segment of the sword world, so I can only speculate and theorize based on the little I know about the rest. It also happens your strength is my weakness; I know practically nothing about Chinese swords. As to why, for katana...well, that's rather up in the air to me. A lot of people would say "oh it's the curved blade, curved blades are way better for cutting than thrusting" and while in some matters this is correct, it is no absolute fact or truth. I often wonder why Japanese swordplay seems so cut-centered, with only a few thrusting options. You mention that many jian and dao share weights AND balance-points? I wasn't aware of this...makes things even more complicated now...but as for jian vs dao, I wonder if we can play on the curve thing again? Also, the Ox Tail variety of dao has that "belly" at the...(on katana it's called the monouchi, euros it might be foible...maybe? I have no idea what to call it here. ) which may offer something in the cut as opposed to the straight, evenly (for the most part) tapered blade of most jian. Maybe? You're sort of losing me by distinguishing a separation of the "point of balance" versus the "weight center" but I'm working on learning this...I think I'm seeing what you're meaning but I'm not really certain. I can't even think of how to describe it to you so I can check, but anyway... Unfortunately, my collection at this point consists only of four katana and two Euros (if I had to classify them, I'd guess Type X? Hanwei William Marshall and an AT 1315. Somebody clue me in on these. ) so I can't really compare too many types side-by-side for weight, balance, etc. to get much of an idea of where and how they differ...let alone why. I do wish some of our designers and smiths would chime in here, particularly Tinker and Gus Trim. I'm sure they'd bear a wealth of knowledge on the subject, if perhaps a bit specific to Euro-type swords...but given the variety in those, I'd say their thoughts should be pretty widely applicable. I can't really think of any other sword types to throw into one or another category, as, again, I think you've summed it up rather well, the rest is just specifics and picking nits. So, uh...the rest of you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 22:54:22 GMT
Hey Liam, I would categorise the shamshir as a chopping weapon personally as they were most often used from horseback like a cavalry sabre. Also they are not as light as many people seem to think.
The katana is miscellaneous, it does everything well and is a category unto itself. The difficulty with classifying the katana is that there are so many geometries and they all act differently to each other.
With chinese swords not all the swords in the same categories work the way their names may suggest. Many dao I would not consider chopping weapons and a few jian I would consider chopping weapons.
Medieval swords are easy to categorise thanks to oakeshott (sp?).
What I find especially true of chinese weapons is that they are user friendly in that (well for me anyway) they dictate the way a person moves. For example the dao style weapons just by looking at them are circular weapons, you move in circles with them, not that you can't do the same with a jian but because of the straight, two edged nature of the jian it seeks to move lightly and swiftly in slashing attacks, pointing and thrusts. With western swords this is not as true, personally I feel far more clumsy with a western sword than I do with a chinese dao or jian. What I find most interesting is the mechanistic difference between the jian and the equivalent western swords. The jian moves so differently, using the same movements with a western sword feels very strange and western techniques with a jian are just as weird. I don't feel that western sword translate eastern styles well or vice versa. Then you have filipino weapons and all sorts that don't really fit a category. The most miscellaneous weapon I have encountered is the yatagan, it thrusts as well as it cuts and it can both chop and slice, versatile and miscellaneous. The yatagan moves much like a combination of a sabre, dao and jian as strange as that sounds, it is as comfortable to move circularly as it is moving in forward strikes, it doesn't point very well though due to a lack of flexibility
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 23:16:55 GMT
From my understanding (which is admittedly limited) the difference, or the best I can explain it is this: The Weight Center of a blade is exactly that the center of gravity of the blade itself with out the interference of hilt, handle, and pommel. For example the Ox Tail Dao blade (see image below this paragraph) is very tip heavy, this gets balanced out (ideally) by the weight of the hilt, handle, and pommel. This brings the "Point of Balance" of the entire sword closer to the hilt. The ideal for this type of sword would be 4-6" from the hilt, the closer to the 4" mark the better. Now contrast this with a Jian. (image again below paragraph) Here the weigh is distributed much more evenly along the entire length of the sword to where the blade alone balances at a point much closer to the tang/hilt area than the naked Dao blade would. However, the ideal for point of balance is still 4-6" from the hilt with the closer one can come to the 4" mark the better. Now, someone like Tinker or Gus Trim or Brenno or Sam Salvati could really explain this better than I could, and brotherbanzai had some great graphics to demonstrate this. (Which I am hoping he will repost here.) "Cutting quality" versions of these swords seem to run in the 2lb range. Therefore, it is soley the blade characteristics that determine the handling difference between the two types. Another example of a lightweight "Chopper" type would be the lowly machete since many of these weigh 1.5lb or less again it is the weight placement in the blade design that provides the power in the cut. Now, if we use the image of the Katana (see below) as the ideal for a dedicated cutter. (I'm certain our fellow forumites will recognize my example as it seems to be a highly regarded blade) This begs the question, what makes it so good a cutting? Is it weight placement, geometry, curvature, or a combination of these factors? Differential hardening set aside, as many different Asian swords were made that way to include Jian and Dao (the Chinese invented differential hardening, the Japanese just perfected it IMO), what about that design makes that sword work the way it does? Thoughts folks? BTW, random we might want to limit the terminology to plain English so everybody can understand us. I could start dropping the Chinese names for sword parts, but nobody would know what I was talking about.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jul 11, 2009 23:39:45 GMT
Ah, I see your meaning now. Makes perfect sense, and wasn't far off from what I was thinking. Seems like it rests in my "belly" idea; "chopping" swords having, generally, a "fatter belly" down toward the business end of the blade, whereas "cutters" are more even throughout, and "pokers" tend to be more narrow. To over-generalize, that is. I'd use the english words if I knew what they were. Bloodwraith also offers a point with his mention of filipino weapons. Those are some wild and crazy things. Likewise, his mention of the yataghan, though I'd probably think it more a balance of chop and cut...maybe with a bit of awkward thrust to it... I'd sure like to have a yataghan...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 23:40:44 GMT
Hey Liam, I would categorise the shamshir as a chopping weapon personally as they were most often used from horseback like a cavalry sabre. Also they are not as light as many people seem to think. The katana is miscellaneous, it does everything well and is a category unto itself. The difficulty with classifying the katana is that there are so many geometries and they all act differently to each other. With chinese swords not all the swords in the same categories work the way their names may suggest. Many dao I would not consider chopping weapons and a few jian I would consider chopping weapons.Medieval swords are easy to categorise thanks to oakeshott (sp?). What I find especially true of chinese weapons is that they are user friendly in that (well for me anyway) they dictate the way a person moves. For example the dao style weapons just by looking at them are circular weapons, you move in circles with them, not that you can't do the same with a jian but because of the straight, two edged nature of the jian it seeks to move lightly and swiftly in slashing attacks, pointing and thrusts. With western swords this is not as true, personally I feel far more clumsy with a western sword than I do with a chinese dao or jian. What I find most interesting is the mechanistic difference between the jian and the equivalent western swords. The jian moves so differently, using the same movements with a western sword feels very strange and western techniques with a jian are just as weird. I don't feel that western sword translate eastern styles well or vice versa. Then you have filipino weapons and all sorts that don't really fit a category. The most miscellaneous weapon I have encountered is the yatagan, it thrusts as well as it cuts and it can both chop and slice, versatile and miscellaneous. The yatagan moves much like a combination of a sabre, dao and jian as strange as that sounds, it is as comfortable to move circularly as it is moving in forward strikes, it doesn't point very well though due to a lack of flexibility That is also why I only called the Niu Wei (Ox Tail) Dao a chopper although I would throw the DaDao and Bagua Dao here also. There's a big difference between the Goose Quill, Willow Leaf, Yang Saber, Zhan Ma Dao (Horse Chopping Saber) and the Ox-Tail in terms of geometry and balance. Chinese Goose Quill SaberChinese Willow Leaf SaberYang SaberZhan Ma Dao (Horse Chopping Saber)Miao Dao (Sprout Leaf Saber / Corn Leaf SaberThe Scimitar-Shamshir may very well be more of a "chopper" than a "cutter." Like I said, I am no expert. Now what other swords can we put in these categories and why. Also, and this is the key question, why do these categories of swords function they way they do?
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jul 11, 2009 23:44:24 GMT
Off-topic but I have to say, that Goose Quill is a mighty fine thing. Quite the piece. No idea how to use it but it sure is nice to look at.
|
|
Marc Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
"The best cost less when you buy it the first time." - Papabear
Posts: 3,122
|
Post by Marc Ridgeway on Jul 12, 2009 0:22:18 GMT
Nah... I strongly disagree. Please go ahead and use the Chinese terminologies... I'll look em up... might learn something. Or you could even make a thread or post for reference ... to help others understand the terminology. Theres things that can be said in japanese... like habaki or unokubi that have no English equivalent really... I mean if I say unokubi zukuri it automatically means something that would take a paragraph or two of English to explain. I'm sure its the same in Chinese... and I know its the same in Euros ( XIX , XVIIIb . etc. ) A little education is good for all of us
|
|
|
Post by sparky on Jul 12, 2009 0:58:58 GMT
First of all- I am enjoying this thread, I've nothing to add to it because of my lack of knowledge. I would agree with Marc, that using the correct terms will help me learn more than if it were "dumbed" down to MY level.
So thanks, I'll be following this with much interest.
Rob
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Jul 12, 2009 1:06:06 GMT
Off-topic but I have to say, that Goose Quill is a mighty fine thing. Quite the piece. No idea how to use it but it sure is nice to look at. 100% agreement, Random. It might be considered sacrilegious, but I pictured that blade/handle shape with a nice pear or tear shaped pommel and an S guard. Great thread so far, I'm enjoying the learning experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2009 1:11:52 GMT
I really liked the graphic about the balance and play of swords with the different weight positions yielding the same Point of Balance - someone really should take the liberty of copy/pasting it here... Fine. I'll do it. "A sword without taper will be tip heavy. You can adjust the point of balance by sliding the pommel farther back on the tang or making the pommel heavier. But where the POB is isn't all there is to how a sword handles. The idea with profile and/or distal taper is to concentrate more of the blades weight closer to the hand. Two swords with identical weights and points of balance can handle completely differently. To more easily visualize this we can imagine an extreme example where the sword is a steel rod with adjustable weights (I read this and saw a similar graphic in an article I read on the web but don't remember where, if anyone knows the article I'm talking about please post a link) as pictured below. 'Sword' A and 'sword' B have identical weights and points of balance. Imagine holding each one at the grip area and maneuvering it around, swinging, cutting, recovering, guarding and whatnot. 'Sword' A has it's weights pushed further out to the ends so it will be harder to initiate a swing and harder to stop the swing. It will also be harder to adjust the swing once it gets going. 'Sword' B has it's weights closer to where the hand grips it so even though the weight and POB are the same, it will handle more like a sword ought to by being faster and more maneuverable." Thank you brotherbanzai! I like the categories that have been set up. I can fit most of the swords that I know of into these categories, but I have a couple that I don't know about: Kris Kalis are hard for me to define, and Falcata I want to call "chop and thrust." I guess you could throw these into miscellaneous, but I for one can't really appreciate the miscellaneous category. Maybe I'm a little OCD, but I think that everything should have it's place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2009 1:39:23 GMT
"Also, and this is the key question, why do these categories of swords function they way they do? " This is a question I can only attempt to answer kind of primitively for choppers and thrusting swords, as these are probably the easiest to break down, as you don't really have to get into edge geometry, just blade shape and balance. Choppers: Choppers seem to be any sword designed to just hack into anything you put into their path. Falcata and Machetes are good examples of this kind of sword. They seem to have more of a "type A" set up according to the graph above, which give it very powerful strokes, but not particularly lively recovery. Choppers tend to have a point of balance that is relatively far forward to ensure that the weight of the sword goes into a brutal head-splitting strike. Thrusting swords: Thrusting swords tend to be well, pointy. Go figure. Length can vary depending on the intended use, but with solely thrusting swords, you don't have to worry about edge geometry, and in the Estoc, you even see triangular cross sections in some examples. With little-to-no cutting edge, you can focus solely on reinforcing it's ability to pierce armor, clothing, and flesh. When you remove the attempts at making a cutting surface, and focus the geometry of the steel into reinforcement for the tip, you can have a sword that can be long, stiff, and brutal. Thrusting weapons tend to need quick weapons that aren't difficult to thrust with repeatedly, and thus are likely not tip heavy. They're probably weighted more like "type B" in the graphic above, with a point of balance closer to the guard. They are interesting weapons, as you're not likely to swing with one in a combat scenario, but they need a quick recovery in case of a missed or deflected jab. This is just a very basic brush on the surface of what makes these sword types function the way they're supposed to. Any corrections, input, or different views are welcome, and I would be very interested in someone explaining why cutting swords are so good at what they do.
|
|
|
Post by sicheah on Jul 12, 2009 1:41:19 GMT
I would classify a kris/keris as a dagger and its primary usage as a thrusting weapon. The wavy (luk) blade acts like a modern day serrated knife which makes it an excellent thrusting weapon. Just like the katana for the Japanese, the keris is a sacred weapon to the indigenous people of the Malay archipelago (Indonesia, Malaysia, Southern Thailand and Southern Philippines). Also it is considered bad luck for a person to buy an heirloom/antique keris because it is "attached" to their owner/family/household and the only reason they would sell it is perhaps due to extreme financial duress. To learn more about keris and its mythology, here is a link: www.thekeris.com/glossary/istilahen.htmlThere is a better website but I have to look for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2009 1:48:08 GMT
I would classify a kris/keris as a dagger and its primary usage as a thrusting weapon. The wavy (luk) blade acts like a modern day serrated knife which makes it an excellent thrusting weapon. Just like the katana for the Japanese, the keris is a sacred weapon to the indigenous people of the Malay archipelago (Indonesia, Malaysia, Southern Thailand and Southern Philippines). Also it is considered bad luck for a person to buy an heirloom/antique keris because it is "attached" to their owner/family/household and the only reason they would sell it is perhaps due to extreme financial duress. To learn more about keris and its mythology, here is a link: www.thekeris.com/glossary/istilahen.htmlThere is a better website but I have to look for it. But serration tends to be more for cutting purposes. Modern serration tends to make the act of cutting easier, not so much for the thrusting, but some kris/keris have geometry that lends itself very well towards thrusting, so cut and thrust, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jul 12, 2009 1:53:10 GMT
I have to disagree that serrations make cutting easier. They make it messier, really. I quite often find myself, frustrated with the provided "steak knives" at various restaurants, ditching the serrated knife and pulling out my own plain-edge, which will put the serrated knife to shame. Though on tougher meats, a saw is sort of necessary, and this is where serrations come in to begin with. Though I'm not sure they'd make much difference in a thrust, either. I seem to recall them being incorporated initially because the wound will tend to rip and tear, rather than cut cleanly, so healing it would be more difficult. Of course, a clean cut leads to better bleeding, but if it's not fatal you can stitch it up and keep going. A messy cut might not be fatal...but it'll be tougher to close, and more likely to get infected...which once upon a time...was fatal.
|
|
|
Post by sicheah on Jul 12, 2009 1:55:16 GMT
Well a primary purpose of the keris is to thrust, the luk (serrated) is designed to inflict greatest amount of damage to your opponent. Other malay weapons that is designed to cut are the pedang (sword), parang (machete?), rencong/badik (short single edge weapon) You can check out some of the senjata (weapon) I googled: forum.lowyat.net/topic/977444/+180Those pictures of peoples are reenactment, nobody wears like those these days Edit: Check out some of the videos below. Unfortunately they are mostly in Malay language except the 2nd video which has English subtitle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2009 1:56:09 GMT
I have to disagree that serrations make cutting easier. They make it messier, really. I quite often find myself, frustrated with the provided "steak knives" at various restaurants, ditching the serrated knife and pulling out my own plain-edge, which will put the serrated knife to shame. Though on tougher meats, a saw is sort of necessary, and this is where serrations come in to begin with. Though I'm not sure they'd make much difference in a thrust, either. I seem to recall them being incorporated initially because the wound will tend to rip and tear, rather than cut cleanly, so healing it would be more difficult. Of course, a clean cut leads to better bleeding, but if it's not fatal you can stitch it up and keep going. A messy cut might not be fatal...but it'll be tougher to close, and more likely to get infected...which once upon a time...was fatal. Fair enough. Seems logical to me.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Jul 12, 2009 2:01:13 GMT
Oh, as to the shape of a kris/keris; I've seen 'em uber-wavy, I've seen 'em arrow-straight. Depends where they're from, I guess. Though regarding the wavy blades...I seem to recall a lot of cultures experimented with serpentine blades, though they never really stuck except in the kris/keris daggers... I can't remember the name of the German units that used the flamberges/flammards/whatever they called them, started with an L...anyway, I seem to recall there was once a pretty heavy debate here about what the waves were for.
My theory is they were a way of achieving a "wider" blade with less actual mass, though perhaps the curves may have been favorable in cutting, too. The kukri tends to cut best either at the outer apex of its "belly" or the inner apex of its "bend" and this may or may not support the idea.
Not that straight edges aren't good cutters, or that curved are automatically VASTLY SUPERIOR or anything, just perhaps a matter of size vs weight vs function...
|
|