|
Post by Cosmoline on Apr 7, 2018 18:53:12 GMT
True, but it's a key part of quite a few moves in HEMA. You certainly *can* just use the long edge, but you lose out on a lot of opportunities for quick attacks and some wicked master cuts. Whether it's the mighty zwerch or the surprise cut to the head from a low hanging guard, you can fight better if you know how to use the short edge too. Plus with arming swords and early longswords, short vs. long is purely positional and often kind of anachronistic. They don't start using the terms until the swords become more complex. So the rule we follow is you should know how to use either edge.
Two longswords vs. spear ;-)
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 7, 2018 20:28:36 GMT
Someone mentioned Arming swords (short swords) earlier, and after thinking I must confess that duel wielding Arming swords (or similar) vs longsword is intriguing, as I always envisioned two full size or a full size and a dagger in the offhand. Duel wielding short swords seems to not only be more achievable in becoming proficient at, but indeed deadly. You can block a blow from a two handed longsword using a heavy one handed arming sword, it would seem. We've played around with two arming swords, but the skill level required to keep both engaged simultaneously is formidable. They're long enough to get badly tangled with each other unless your left is on par with your right. Circle and line or short line and long line coordinate much more easily than two long lines. So with two arming swords people tend to just alternate one to the other or use the left side rather passively for deflection. I've seen some interesting work by the FSA folks using two small curved blades, but those are a good foot shorter than an arming sword. There are no texts showing dual arming sword or duel messer that I know of, but there are some illustrations showing it. These appear to show an alternating pattern use, which makes sense. So one is preparing a cut while the other is clearing the line or thrusting. If someone had time to spend a lot of time on the dreaded Left Hand Days it could be made to work. But if you've ever had a Left Hand Day where you spend two or three hours doing all the complex drills with the opposite hands, you realize quickly how brain-boilingly difficult that can be. I agree with all you said Cosmo, that duel wielding is a formidable challenge, made more difficult as the blade length increases, particularly when dealing with double edge blades (four long edge arcs instead of two to keep track of and control). I ordered the Windlass Oakeshott XIV Arming sword on closeout yesterday from MRL (smoking price of $107 after shipping) and did a little research on arming swords. I guess they called it "Arming" only as to describe standard kit for every knight and soldier when they geared up, part of their Armament. So, the blade length variance (though generally stated as 27"-32") could be anything, historically, from 23"-38". And, of course, the shape (type) also changed and varied with the time and place. Bottom line, an arming sword was what you put on when you suited up. That Windlass has a 26 1/4" blade, or what I would consider the long side of what a person would call a short sword, and a good deal easier to duel wield than blades that are half a foot (32") longer. Personally, I'd go for the short sword in my strong hand and an offhand with good hand protection in my weak, because I'm a firm believer in the "long & short" combination if duel wielding (if that is even considered duel wielding).
|
|
|
Post by coldnapalm on Apr 8, 2018 19:52:01 GMT
Of COURSE you close after you control their blade. I have been saying that for a while now...or what did you think get into your measure means using a shorter reach weapon? You were equating engaging the tip of the longsword with the katana with immediate victory: "At which point I have a pretty high chance of killing you right than and there." I was saying that you still need to do a lot to achieve that victory, and you can't do it right there and then. And I don't know why you keep assuming that it is easy to disengage your weapon from somebody who has control of it. Is it impossible to do so? No. But it ain't easy. If we are given equal skill it is fairly unlikely to be actually be able to do this. If you have two swords engaged tip-to-tip, and you can't disengage easily, you are doing something wrong. You don't need to worry about protecting yourself, since your hands, arms, and body are all out of reach of your opponent's weapon. You should be able to disengage by withdrawing your sword, moving your point to the side straight away from their sword, semicircular over the tip, semicircular under the blade (i.e., towards the hilt), and depending on how your opponent is applying pressure, cut-over and/or cut-under. If your opponent is applying strong pressure, moving the point to the side and then withdrawing as your opponent follows your point to the side. If your opponent is attempting to close, and you are attempting to keep distance, you have plenty of time to do these things. Disengagement when you are within hitting distance of your opponent's weapon is not so easy - you need to protect yourself from being hit, more space is cut off by your opponent's weapon, and more of your own sword is past the opponent's blade which makes some disengages that are easy at tip-to-tip (like withdrawing your blade) much harder or impossible. Your own video shows why that X block doesn't work. Pressure applied to the middle of that block makes the whole thing collapse. Having done it successfully myself, and having seen other people do it successfully, including full-contact with full-weight weapons, I know it can be done. If it's done right. And you don't block with a one handed sword vs a two handed sword...you PARRY. Typically, you prefer to parry. Same thing with a two-sword X-block: you prefer to parry. However, you can just stop the two-handed sword with a hard block. Having done it successfully myself, and having seen other people do it successfully, including full-contact with full-weight weapons, I know it can be done. If it's done right. Once you gain control of somebody's blade, your chance of winning IS increased...dramatically...right than and there. And that is what happens when you have a short 28 inch lever vs a 39 inch lever meet. If you are using matched weapons...why yes, tip to tip contact is easy to disengage from. That is because neither side has a clear mechanical advantage in that scenario. But that is NOT what we are talking about. We are talking about a shorter bladed weapon held with equal handedness and leverage vs a longer one. Remember that the katana has a hilt as long as what you see in longswords. They get to apply the same force on that shorter blade tip. That is like is a longsword user binds you 10 inches down their blade and you are at the tip. They control your blade...and disengage at that point ain't easy. If you did it successfully, that is because the longsword guy messed up more than you did something right. You don't have the body mechanics where you are at an advantage in this block. I like to block when I use a longsword vs an arming sword...or any one handed sword honestly. I parry when I use a one handed sword vs a two handed weapon. It's called changing your tactics based on the situation.
|
|
|
Post by coldnapalm on Apr 8, 2018 20:12:32 GMT
Umm...I have no idea how you grip a longsword, but even with 7 inch handle longswords, I get PLENTY more leverage with the second hand there. And I can and do blow through one handed parries if they are not committed parried done at the forte with a two handed longsword blow. Not because I am stronger mind you, but because a two handed blow against the foible of a one handed weapon is just that much stronger in body mechanics. Yes if he parries with his forte properly, the two handed blow can be parried...but at that point he can just move up and stab me with his dagger. There is no need to bind or do anything fancier than parry and stab. Hell depending on how he parries, he could even probably just stab me with the sword itself and keep that dagger for any possible counter attacks on my part after I get stabbed if i don't die immediately. I could possibly see something like this being of use against a buffalo who is attempting to overpower you with a longsword possibly. Or if there a huge difference in strength between you and the longsword user...but to bind with a dagger like that against a two handed sword in a normal fight seems just like a bad idea to me. For one thing, YOU lose reach. A 38 inch sword in two hands has less reach than a 38 inch sword in one hand. I mean it is one the biggest things I have to overcome when fighting a rapier in one hand with a longsword in two hands. For you to give up that advantage and give it to me seems like a bad idea. Once again, barring certain situations...like fighting a buffalo (because I have done something like this against brutes who try and just force their way past your guards using a rapier and dagger...and yes he was much stronger than me). On the leverage of the longsword… The leverage is low compared to other two-handed weapons. On parrying the longsword blow… Of course you need to parry with the forte. On stabbing with the dagger after parrying at his foible… It depends… Most often it’s not a good idea to count on a dagger stab, since there is the danger of an afterblow. On binding with two weapons… No, it’s not a specific technique used against a buffalo, neither a strategy, but a concept to beat longer weapons in general. It has little to do with strength. And you don’t necessarily have to give up your reach with the main hand weapon. On enclosing in general… If you see the opportunity to hit severely while closing in, without getting hit severely during the process, then you should of course do so. … On trying to get control at the foible… I think we had that discussion in another thread before (something about “tip power”, I think). That tactic actually plays into one of the main strengths of the longsword, since it is so quick to keep the point on line or “Durchwechseln”. Even if you manage to really beat his point off line, you always are in danger of the afterblow, since the time you need to close is at least he same then he needs to counterstrike (time of the feet vs. time of the hands). That’s why control is important during enclosing. Why yes a longsword doesn't have the leverage of say a poleax. Never said it did. What I said was the leverage advantage of a longsword vs an arming sword is quite large...which it is. IF you cleared his blade, than you should be fine to stab with the dagger...if you did not...than yes that is a danger. But if you did not clear his blade and going on the offensive with a short weapon like a dagger...umm...why are we assuming stupid again? Yeah if both the people involved are COMPLETE morons who know nothing yeah a lot of things can go wrong. Didn't realize when I said that both combatants were of the same skill we assumed this level. My bad. Yeah lets assume that both people involves are of equal skill AND not complete morons...k? So...tell me, how you get your dagger in place to help block at the top of the rapier forte again? I mean that must be some super long dagger you have there. Otherwise you are losing reach as the reach is now what you dagger can reach. There is no way around that. And honestly this method seems like an extraordinarily bad idea against a polearm actually. Especially one with axe or hammer head styles. You just gave them a point to hook and pull both your weapons from your hand with. And against quick stabbing weapons like a spear, I fail to see how a guard like that would even help. If they had a glaive...maybe...but still not seeing it over parry and stab. And who said ANYTHING about encroaching without dealing the other person's blade? Because it sure as hell wasn't me. Are you even reading what I am typing? No seriously? What part of control their blade is such a hard concept for people to understand? OMG...BASIC stuff here people BASIC. The tip of a longsword is quite good at the disengage and get back on line true. But once again, this is assuming against other longswords. Things change when you match it with other weapons. The ability of a longsword getting back online does not matter if you can't disengage to begin with as the other guy has control of your blade. Or if the guy is using a spear or rapier and can do it faster that you...at longer ranges. When I use a longsword vs a rapier, the LAST thing I want to do is disengage at tip range. That is asking him to please stab me.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Apr 8, 2018 20:45:15 GMT
Once you gain control of somebody's blade, your chance of winning IS increased...dramatically...right than and there. And that is what happens when you have a short 28 inch lever vs a 39 inch lever meet. Touching tips isn't controlling their weapon. If you are using matched weapons...why yes, tip to tip contact is easy to disengage from. ... They get to apply the same force on that shorter blade tip. Sure, you have a leverage advantage with the katana. If longsword was silly enough to just stay there, pushing tip against tip, you'd win the pushing match. Q: Why would longsword be so foolish, so incompetent, as to do that, to just stay in that losing pushing match? A: They don't stay there. They disengage. Your leverage advantage doesn't stop it. Strong pressure will make some methods of disengaging harder, but will make others more effective. Even if you have your forte against their tip, for a supreme leverage advantage, it's still easy for longsword to disengage. Disengagement when tip-to-tip is easy, even with a leverage disadvantage. No need to worry about protecting yourself, since you're out of reach of your opponent's weapon. You can disengage by withdrawing your sword, moving your point to the side straight away from their sword, semicircular over the tip, semicircular under the blade (and the full circular versions of these), and usually at least one of cut-over and/or cut-under.
|
|
|
Post by coldnapalm on Apr 8, 2018 20:49:08 GMT
Your own video shows why that X block doesn't work. Pressure applied to the middle of that block makes the whole thing collapse. And you don't block with a one handed sword vs a two handed sword...you PARRY. There is a difference between the two. That dual wielding guys attempts to block a bunch of times and paid the price with a kill for the longsword guy for his trouble. That is the thing...you can't block. Not really anyways. You could technically parry, wait for the very last second of the parry to lock his sword with your second sword so he can't disengage and that step in to attack...or you can parry and stab him with the second sword and be done with it. But to do that, you need make sure you don't get murdered by his reach advantage that you don't really have a way to negate now...unlike using a katana two handed. Now if you switch that second katana for a shield...yeah you have a really great way to negate his reach advantage...so honestly if you want to get all super cheaty face...grab a shield. And yes the Japanese had shields. Where did you find the reference for the Japanese using shields? Any kenjutsu practice I've seen does not utilize them, nor are they depicted in historical artwork or otherwise documented as armaments for samurai. Every source I've stumbled across describes the Japanese as primarily focused on bows and polearms so they did not typically carry shields, what shields they utilized were stationary for guarding archers. There was a thread that discussed this a while back where another mentioned tortoiseshell shields, although those were fairly niche and not at all part of the standard combat routine. You can also block with a one handed sword, but it does take on a form somewhat similar to a parry. With katana at least, the edge is prone to chipping if it collides directly with the opponents edge which can be used to your advantage. You can effectively trap the opponents sword for a moment allowing you to direct it aside and strike with the sword in your other arm. Not my favorite method (oh, the poor edge) but it's viable in the right context. A reach advantage isn't the best depending on circumstance. If a person with a longsword is facing an individual who aggressively closes with two shorter blades, the former is at a large disadvantage once the latter closes in. The logic of the longsword being able to keep poking at an opponent and maintain an advantage is somewhat faulty, especially given a shorter sword is generally more agile and can focus on parrying and promote closing-in readily. It boils down to keeping the longer weapon off-line/off-point from how I see it, and is more than doable. If the practitioner with the two shorter weapons focuses on keeping out of the opponents range, the mindset is set at "I don't want to be hit" rather than "this is how I will strike" and will consequently be at a loss. So my position on this topic has more or less stayed the same, a single katana vs. a longsword is fundamentally more difficult in comparison to nito, where the latter poses advantages against a longsword. Here is a link about shield in Japan if you want to have a read. samuraiantiqueworld.proboards.com/thread/28/use-shields-japanI should preface that when I said Japanese, I meant Japanese...not just the Samurai. Please do not mix up the two. Your block sounds like a parry there. And why yes, a parry stab is a very valid way to deal with the longsword user with two katanas...or any two weapon combo really. Still requires you to get past the reach advantage. Which aiming for the tip with a katana in two hand really doesn't. If you get close to me with a longsword and you leave my sword free...yeah woe to you and your skull and ribs and anything that I will pommel with the pommel...or cross guard. Not that your two short sword will get anywhere near me if you are at my skill level as there is nothing you can really do to me and my sword to keep it from stabbing you from safety. Because while a longsword in two hands loses some reach over one handed...it ain't 10 inches. In fact, there was demo where we did longsword vs katana...with me using the longsword and one of the matches, the katana user did a one handed stab at my face to try to out reach me...with her hand all the way at the end of her hilt. I stabbed her from Ox. My sword stabbed in under her arms and my blade was flexed 2 inches and her katana was nowhere near my face. Yeah...the reach advantage is real. You don't gain control of my blade somehow and you will be in for a world of hurt.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 8, 2018 22:28:33 GMT
I think (31 pages in) that the general consensus (and basic statement) is that there are certainly effective ways to deal with a longsword when wielding a katana (or similar shorter bladed weapon), but that the Longsword does enjoy a basic versatility advantage due to its characteristics (longer double edged weapon without much added weight which can be used as short spear in the bind). If someone personally favors katana, it would be well to study ways to deal with longswords general versatility advantage, which is what this thread was all about. I think many have given great answers on the subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2018 0:37:16 GMT
I categorically deny and reject the notion that the longsword has any advantage over the katana.
Advantages are situational and dependant on circumstances. Learn how to use your weapon and your body.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 9, 2018 1:15:52 GMT
I categorically deny and reject the notion that the longsword has any advantage over the katana. Advantages are situational and dependant on circumstances. Learn how to use your weapon and your body. The consensus is based, of course, on generalities, not specifics, as I have a short katana under my bed for tighter spaces. Those thinking katana as being generally equal or superior to longsword are in the extreme minority based on the totality of this thread, though I respect ones opinion. Polearm beats longsword for the same basic reasons. My opinion, facing an individual in an open field, lightly clothed with a shorter, less versatile weapon is generally a mistake. I would choose, for instance, a regular sized katana over a shorter bladed ko katana. Can an equally skilled katana wielder defeat someone with a longsword, of course. But the general advantages and versatility of longsword over katana have been well explained and (mostly) agreed upon, and certainly to my satisfaction. None of this should be misconstrued as saying that one weapon is exponentially superior to the point of comparing a rifle to a handgun, as these are just two very competent swords and we are talking about many small things in aggregate, though the roughly 8" longsword blade advantage is very significant (that's what she said ), and I think this is the difference. Katana being blade forward (better chopper but less balanced) but a little lighter, Longsword having better guard, double edge, closer POB, short spear in bind, blade on blade banger. Exponentially larger Europe saw everything for centuries while little, isolated Japan, not so much, and I think this made longsword more versatile and adaptable in battlefield terms certainly, although both saw duel (Japan more so, and very ritualized).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2018 3:07:47 GMT
So much is dependent on factors that are independent on weapon length. Personally I think it is too individually demoralizing to worry about whether X or Y weapon has an advantage, and that you should win regardless of what you have in your hand. If all I have is a toothbrush, I will figure out a way to take victory with it.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 9, 2018 3:28:29 GMT
So much is dependent on factors that are independent on weapon length. Personally I think it is too individually demoralizing to worry about whether X or Y weapon has an advantage, and that you should win regardless of what you have in your hand. If all I have is a toothbrush, I will figure out a way to take victory with it. I certainly agree that this is a partially "hair splitting" exercise and that skill level, environmental factors (why I favor Ko-Katana in confined spaces), even luck, etc...cannot be overestimated. A pro with a Katana would be foolish to switch to longsword after becoming a master, unless it was to gain more knowledge against the longsword (a BIG point for this threads creation). I only discuss this as a hypothetical quasi-theoretical exercise that imagines a general advantage over a large population pool. Example being say, 590 out of 1000 win with longsword under equal conditions (light clothing in a large, even field), for instance. In other words, a slight advantage after comparing numbers of fights over time. This still means that 410 katana wielders would be holding the severed head of a longsword wielder in their victories paws. Now, I'd like to see the percentage rate (out of a thousand bouts) between a toothbrush wielder and person armed with a billhook...gulp . Btw, Jon, I edited my post above by simply adding a bit more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2018 3:59:55 GMT
So much is dependent on factors that are independent on weapon length. Personally I think it is too individually demoralizing to worry about whether X or Y weapon has an advantage, and that you should win regardless of what you have in your hand. If all I have is a toothbrush, I will figure out a way to take victory with it. I certainly agree that this is a partially "hair splitting" exercise and that skill level, environmental factors (why I favor Ko-Katana in confined spaces), even luck, etc...cannot be overestimated. A pro with a Katana would be foolish to switch to longsword after becoming a master, unless it was to gain more knowledge against the longsword (a BIG point for this threads creation). I only discuss this as a hypothetical quasi-theoretical exercise that imagines a general advantage over a large population pool. Example being say, 590 out of 1000 win with longsword under equal conditions (light clothing in a large, even field), for instance. In other words, a slight advantage after comparing numbers of fights over time. This still means that 410 katana wielders would be holding the severed head of a longsword wielder in their victories paws. Now, I'd like to see the percentage rate (out of a thousand bouts) between a toothbrush wielder and person armed with a billhook...gulp ??? . Btw, Jon, I edited my post above by simply adding a bit more. What's a match? Are they playing to a touch, to the point where somebody in a tuxedo drops a stick between them, or until someone is rendered incapable of continuing?
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Apr 9, 2018 3:59:59 GMT
Where did you find the reference for the Japanese using shields? Any kenjutsu practice I've seen does not utilize them, nor are they depicted in historical artwork or otherwise documented as armaments for samurai. Every source I've stumbled across describes the Japanese as primarily focused on bows and polearms so they did not typically carry shields, what shields they utilized were stationary for guarding archers. There was a thread that discussed this a while back where another mentioned tortoiseshell shields, although those were fairly niche and not at all part of the standard combat routine. You can also block with a one handed sword, but it does take on a form somewhat similar to a parry. With katana at least, the edge is prone to chipping if it collides directly with the opponents edge which can be used to your advantage. You can effectively trap the opponents sword for a moment allowing you to direct it aside and strike with the sword in your other arm. Not my favorite method (oh, the poor edge) but it's viable in the right context. A reach advantage isn't the best depending on circumstance. If a person with a longsword is facing an individual who aggressively closes with two shorter blades, the former is at a large disadvantage once the latter closes in. The logic of the longsword being able to keep poking at an opponent and maintain an advantage is somewhat faulty, especially given a shorter sword is generally more agile and can focus on parrying and promote closing-in readily. It boils down to keeping the longer weapon off-line/off-point from how I see it, and is more than doable. If the practitioner with the two shorter weapons focuses on keeping out of the opponents range, the mindset is set at "I don't want to be hit" rather than "this is how I will strike" and will consequently be at a loss. So my position on this topic has more or less stayed the same, a single katana vs. a longsword is fundamentally more difficult in comparison to nito, where the latter poses advantages against a longsword. Here is a link about shield in Japan if you want to have a read. samuraiantiqueworld.proboards.com/thread/28/use-shields-japanI should preface that when I said Japanese, I meant Japanese...not just the Samurai. Please do not mix up the two.Your block sounds like a parry there. And why yes, a parry stab is a very valid way to deal with the longsword user with two katanas...or any two weapon combo really. Still requires you to get past the reach advantage. Which aiming for the tip with a katana in two hand really doesn't. If you get close to me with a longsword and you leave my sword free...yeah woe to you and your skull and ribs and anything that I will pommel with the pommel...or cross guard. Not that your two short sword will get anywhere near me if you are at my skill level as there is nothing you can really do to me and my sword to keep it from stabbing you from safety. Because while a longsword in two hands loses some reach over one handed...it ain't 10 inches. In fact, there was demo where we did longsword vs katana...with me using the longsword and one of the matches, the katana user did a one handed stab at my face to try to out reach me...with her hand all the way at the end of her hilt. I stabbed her from Ox. My sword stabbed in under her arms and my blade was flexed 2 inches and her katana was nowhere near my face. Yeah...the reach advantage is real. You don't gain control of my blade somehow and you will be in for a world of hurt. Well, I will respond in an appropriate manner. First, yes, I know the difference between the Japanese and the samurai. Just as there is a difference between a dead horse and a live one. No need to further address that one. But good laughs. Second, parry stab? Amateur hour. CUT. CUT, CUT, CUT. Cutting facilitates moving on from the target. Thrusting leads to sticking. Generally, better to cut than thrust. Some exceptions considered. Man, a pommel? End him rightly? A cross guard? Really? I'm just laughing at this. Whatever you're studying may be what it is, but it's not viable to rely on this when facing one who is skilled in using two blades at once. It's just not viable. The whole idea of being struck with a pommel or crossguard...just...good stuff! The reach advantage? In your example, sure, if that person is dumb enough to do that. If it's not a technical demonstration, then no. Too many opportunities for that to go awry. Regarding the source you mentioned on shields, there was minimal there on concrete usage of shields in a significant manner. Shoulder guards are cool, can be considered 'shields', but I still consider them differently than the western interpretation of shields. Perhaps an erroneous conclusion, but still in stark contrast to European methods. The fundamental metric is the Japanese largely did not use shields, as is evident in their kenjutsu practice. Shoulder armor is not translatable to a buckler or shield the way I see it. A message board is fine for fun, but when no published material touches on this subject, I'm more skeptical. Shields are not represented in JSA, and can appropriately be relegated to the realm of fun tangential topics and little more. The reach advantage doesn't exist. Because I say it doesn't exist. If we had the chance to play around with this mindset, it'd be a fun afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Apr 9, 2018 5:28:46 GMT
I categorically deny and reject the notion that the longsword has any advantage over the katana. Advantages are situational and dependant on circumstances. Learn how to use your weapon and your body. So you wouldn't consider the longer blade, two edges, more substantial hand protection, and a more substantial pommel to strike with to be advantages given fighters of equal skill? While I do agree that advantages are dependent on the circumstance, (for instance, in a one on one duel I wouldn't want to pick say, a dussack over a full sized sabre) I think it is a little off to say that there are no advantages present in the qualities mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Apr 9, 2018 6:23:42 GMT
Yeah, by the logic that advantages are purely situational, a golf pencil is sometimes better than a longsword.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 9, 2018 6:35:52 GMT
I certainly agree that this is a partially "hair splitting" exercise and that skill level, environmental factors (why I favor Ko-Katana in confined spaces), even luck, etc...cannot be overestimated. A pro with a Katana would be foolish to switch to longsword after becoming a master, unless it was to gain more knowledge against the longsword (a BIG point for this threads creation). I only discuss this as a hypothetical quasi-theoretical exercise that imagines a general advantage over a large population pool. Example being say, 590 out of 1000 win with longsword under equal conditions (light clothing in a large, even field), for instance. In other words, a slight advantage after comparing numbers of fights over time. This still means that 410 katana wielders would be holding the severed head of a longsword wielder in their victories paws. Now, I'd like to see the percentage rate (out of a thousand bouts) between a toothbrush wielder and person armed with a billhook...gulp . Btw, Jon, I edited my post above by simply adding a bit more. What's a match? Are they playing to a touch, to the point where somebody in a tuxedo drops a stick between them, or until someone is rendered incapable of continuing? Incapacitation, either physically or individual realization and subsequent surrender by the person at (probable gross) disadvantage (the clear loser).
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 9, 2018 6:53:33 GMT
Yeah, by the logic that advantages are purely situational, a golf pencil is sometimes better than a longsword. Ha, particularly if one is on a golf course and the longsword is on the mantle at home . I always state the scenario unless specified otherwise (shields, armor, multiple opponents, confined spaces, etc...) as two equally skilled, average sized, lightly clothed individuals on an open level field in good weather. In the end, I just see that 8" or so length advantage (that's what she said ) the longsword enjoys (among other lesser reasons) as expressing itself when the matches add up. Would it be 600 per, 700 per, or barely over 500 per 1000? I do think that it would empirically be over 500 and would bet over 600. Maybe not a huge deal, but statistically significant.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 9, 2018 7:01:17 GMT
I categorically deny and reject the notion that the longsword has any advantage over the katana. Advantages are situational and dependant on circumstances. Learn how to use your weapon and your body. So you wouldn't consider the longer blade, two edges, more substantial hand protection, and a more substantial pommel to strike with to be advantages given fighters of equal skill? While I do agree that advantages are dependent on the circumstance, (for instance, in a one on one duel I wouldn't want to pick say, a dussack over a full sized sabre) I think it is a little off to say that there are no advantages present in the qualities mentioned. Yes, other factors, of course, being huge, the innate advantages the longsword has would still express themselves statistically, no doubt in at least some small fashion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2018 12:38:03 GMT
I categorically deny and reject the notion that the longsword has any advantage over the katana. Advantages are situational and dependant on circumstances. Learn how to use your weapon and your body. So you wouldn't consider the longer blade, two edges, more substantial hand protection, and a more substantial pommel to strike with to be advantages given fighters of equal skill? While I do agree that advantages are dependent on the circumstance, (for instance, in a one on one duel I wouldn't want to pick say, a dussack over a full sized sabre) I think it is a little off to say that there are no advantages present in the qualities mentioned. Correct. The length of my sword doesn't matter, I'll move into position to use it. I can track the same vectors with the back of the sword or just turn the blade around so having an edge on one side or the other doesn't matter. Hand protection isn't a big factor as I don't block with the guard or the tsuba; a round tsuba is 360 degrees of protection instead of a bit of steel sticking out in line with the edges. A kashira is more than sufficient to strike with. Two equal fighters don't exist. May as well envision two perfect spheres on an infinite flat plane. People have different physiologies, psychologies, experiences, preferences, so on. Two people can go to the same classes the same number of times and come away with very different levels of skill however you want to quantify it.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Apr 9, 2018 14:03:24 GMT
So you wouldn't consider the longer blade, two edges, more substantial hand protection, and a more substantial pommel to strike with to be advantages given fighters of equal skill? While I do agree that advantages are dependent on the circumstance, (for instance, in a one on one duel I wouldn't want to pick say, a dussack over a full sized sabre) I think it is a little off to say that there are no advantages present in the qualities mentioned. Correct. The length of my sword doesn't matter, I'll move into position to use it. I can track the same vectors with the back of the sword or just turn the blade around so having an edge on one side or the other doesn't matter. Hand protection isn't a big factor as I don't block with the guard or the tsuba; a round tsuba is 360 degrees of protection instead of a bit of steel sticking out in line with the edges. A kashira is more than sufficient to strike with. Two equal fighters don't exist. May as well envision two perfect spheres on an infinite flat plane. People have different physiologies, psychologies, experiences, preferences, so on. Two people can go to the same classes the same number of times and come away with very different levels of skill however you want to quantify it. So if you had say, a ginunting and I had a full size cav sabre - I would have no advantage? I've fenced shorter weapons vs longer weapons, (broadsword/katana/sabre vs longsword) and it's very difficult to close in with the shorter weapon if the other fellow knows what they're doing. Even more so if they can hit you without you even being able to enact a tip cut. The cross guard in longsword is used a lot in techniques, it's used to catch blades and used in the bind to maneuver around without your hand getting chopped into to. You might not block with your guard - but if I can choose to that does give me more versatility - and therefore another tool to use - and therefore possibly an advantage? While a Kashira may be sufficient to strike with, I doubt it's as effective as the pommel of a longsword, which are solid lumps of steel with no chance of coming off, unlike the Kashira which if I remember correctly is a hollow cap fit over the end of the tsuka held on by the ito? I disagree on the last point but it is a rather pointless thing to argue as it's completely abstract.
|
|