|
Post by howler on Dec 25, 2018 6:45:21 GMT
Machetes are not to be trifled with, that much is sure. However, we must also consider the cultural application of the weapons. In the Far East and South America, the machete is to the people that live there as the cell phone is to those in the West. In other words, even a 10 year old Malaysian is an expert with a machete, whereas an American kid of the same age is an expert with a baseball bat. So it makes more sense to equip the locals with the weapon they would find most intuitive based on their cultural experiences. I would avoid giving anything sharp like a spear to a person that's never used anything sharp due to the high risk of self injury, or injuring those around them. Even in the Army, we kept the sheath on the bayonet when it was fixed to the rifle until we were ready to use it for safety reasons. Now if I had an hour or two in which to train my expedient peasant militia, then I would absolutely go for spears in that case. I guess it's all dependent on the situation. If I had to arm my co-workers I would have to go with bats because there is a large sporting good store across the street from us and I can get my hands on the bats very easily whereas in the matter of spears or machetes I have no ideas where to get them locally unless we have the time to fabricate them ourselves (which we have the materials and means to do, but do we have the time?). It's amazing what other cultures do with large blades like Golok, Parang, Bolo, Latin, kukri, barong, enep, etc...although alot of that amazement for me lies in utility uses. With both a generic Latin or spear, I'm focusing my answer on those with a basic knowledge of the weapon (but by no means experts) rather than complete newcomers. With no knowledge whatsoever I think I'd stick with the bat as well.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 25, 2018 14:54:27 GMT
Speaking of cultural differences I’ve said many times before that here the machete is king. Save city dwellers, and some of them, a kid from the earliest age will know how to use a machete. I’ve seen Colombian kids less than 10 wielding a machete preparing sprouts to grow cocaine plants. I was in an US court for something and was setting there listening to the cases. I had to have some kind of entertainment. There was a latino brought before the judge on the charge of drunk driving, in the morning going to work, and a weapons charge, the officer found a machete in his car’s trunk. He had been partying the night before and the effects hadn’t worn off by the time he needed to go to work and found quality of a DUI. As for the weapon’s charge, when asked why he was armed, he simply said that it was a tool at which the entire court including the judge laughed at him. I laughed too but not at him but the court. Never mind what I was thinking as it no doubt would offend some.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Dec 25, 2018 15:24:19 GMT
Context is key. I would suspect most Latinos would have a machete (or several) laying around various places and just not think twice about it because it's a natural part of everyday life. If that same incident happened in Colombia, then the cops wouldn't have even batted an eye at the machete.
I had a friend once that beat a concealed weapons charge. He was pulled over for speeding and the cop noticed a grungy, taped handled knife tucked between the seat and console. My friend didn't have a concealed weapon permit so was hauled off to jail and charged. In the courtroom he pulled out his electrician license and told the judge he used the knife for work. Lucky for him, the knife handle was wrapped with black electrical tape. The "weapon" suddenly became a "tool" for trade.
So ok, he didn't use the knife actually for work...but he got off the charge anyways so it all worked out. Context.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Dec 25, 2018 19:41:09 GMT
Context is key. I would suspect most Latinos would have a machete (or several) laying around various places and just not think twice about it because it's a natural part of everyday life. If that same incident happened in Colombia, then the cops wouldn't have even batted an eye at the machete. I had a friend once that beat a concealed weapons charge. He was pulled over for speeding and the cop noticed a grungy, taped handled knife tucked between the seat and console. My friend didn't have a concealed weapon permit so was hauled off to jail and charged. In the courtroom he pulled out his electrician license and told the judge he used the knife for work. Lucky for him, the knife handle was wrapped with black electrical tape. The "weapon" suddenly became a "tool" for trade. So ok, he didn't use the knife actually for work...but he got off the charge anyways so it all worked out. Context. Seems like one of the advantages of using weapons that have utility as tools, that being in dealings with police, courtrooms, charges, repercussions...the legal realm, as authorities do seem to frown more upon weapons designed and "committed" to bodily harm.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Dec 25, 2018 20:00:17 GMT
The discussion about katana and machete remembers me of my own (ahamm, ahamm) theory about the difference between machete and sword. Machetes are definitely very good bladed weapons but they are extremely focused on attacking. In my opinion a real sword has additional abilities in the defensive area. A guard of course, but also a thrusting point on a long blade or perhaps two edges are not only good for attacking but also to keep the opponent at distance or give some control over his blade in a binding. A katana has a guard, tip and is also longer than a machete but I see a focus on attacking not very far away from fighting with a machete (no expert!). Perhaps this is the reason why it seems easier to handle for an untrained person. But on the other side this concept lacks the idea of defense in a swordfight. A chaotic agressive attack might have some advantage even against a skilked opponent but the problem is surviving the fight.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 25, 2018 21:13:29 GMT
GM Giron’s style, Larga Mano, has no defence. It is strictly chop, chop, advance, advance. He used a non-pointed long sword of his design, with no guard. He didn’t need a guard with his style that he used successfully in the Philippines fighting the Japanese during WWII. He is now deceased but his students continue to teach Larga Mano. Don’t forget the Shasqua when it comes to no guard.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Dec 25, 2018 21:31:20 GMT
But did the Cossacks or the Philippinos win the war with this style? I agree this fighting style can work but in the end you have too many dead heroes.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Dec 25, 2018 22:03:16 GMT
There will always be a compromise that a person will have do decide on individually between a pure fighting blade and a utility/fighter, with pluses & minuses for each. Both is the answer (talking among fellow knife/sword nuts), but if I were forced to choose just one it would be the fighter/utility, as it's just too practical, and the vast numbers of that type of tool in those regions seem to bear out this concept.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Dec 26, 2018 18:52:18 GMT
The langes messer strikes me as an ideal form of fighting machete. It's lighter, somewhat longer and has a short edge. It also includes a hilt and nagel for protecting the hand and executing a number of master cuts.
|
|
|
Post by Onimusha on Jan 1, 2019 4:59:54 GMT
It is no secret that a Katana would do poorly against a longsword in a one on one duel, or even on a battle field. Do we really know that? Is there any evidence? Sure, we have accounts of samurai not doing well against the Portuguese with their rapiers, but how much of that is due to the weapons themselves, and how much is due to the skills of the fighters or the fact that the Japanese were unfamiliar with such weapons? What advantages does the longsword really have? It has a crossguard, but is that really that much of an advantage? Yes, it offers a wider area of hand protection than a tsuba buy only in one plane. It's not like you can't thrust and halfsword with a katana. I've actually seen practitioners do it as part of armored fighting in much the same way HEMA practitioners do. I don't know if it's historical, but it can be done. People always talk about the length advantage of the longsword as though there is a maximum length that katana cannot exceed. I once read an article that cited a Japanese source describing the swords of the 47 ronin (can't read Japanese, and I haven't been able to find a traslation). Some of them were 34-36 inches. Some styles today use swords of 30 or 31 inches. It wasn't until the edo period that their lengths were restricted IIRC. Armored combat would put a traditional katana at a disadvantage, since the edge wouldn't fare well if it were to bang against steel plate, but you'd be making more use of the tip anyway. As for Japanese armor. There are some historical armors that use chainmail to cover the joints and gaps just as European armor did. That's getting away from longsword vs katana and getting into knight vs samurai territory though. I have yet to see an actual sparring session between serious practitioners of the two disciplines. I've seen plenty of novices flail around with their respective weapons, neither employing any actual techniques. I'v also seen Kendo practitioners go against HEMA students. Kendo isn't a fighting art any more than foil fencing is (I know I'll get a lot of backlash on that one), but at least those guys do actual free sparring. Most JSA taught today don't. The closest they come to sparring is two-man kata. Going through a planned sequence of movements with a cooperative partner who knows what is "supposed" to happen is a vastly different thing from an actual fight. Ironically, the novice bouts tend to look very kendo-esque, consisting of a lot of downward strokes attempting hit the opponent in the head before the opponent can return the favor. This results in an awfully large percentage of doubles. JSA these days are far removed from any martial context. That's true of many "Martial" arts these days. Any time your stated goal is "self improvement and inner peace" you're not doing martial arts. You're just doing arts. Their goal is not teaching people to fight. If there are any Kyokushin people in the house, I'm not talking about you. Please don't hurt me :) The HEMA community, on the other hand, is not afraid to acknowledge the fact that they're reconstructing fighting arts. Maybe one day there will be a similar movement in JSA. Until that happens, I don't think we'll ever get a definitive answer as to which weapon is better. Of course that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 1, 2019 5:37:15 GMT
It is no secret that a Katana would do poorly against a longsword in a one on one duel, or even on a battle field. Do we really know that? Is there any evidence? Sure, we have accounts of samurai not doing well against the Portuguese with their rapiers, but how much of that is due to the weapons themselves, and how much is due to the skills of the fighters or the fact that the Japanese were unfamiliar with such weapons? What advantages does the longsword really have? It has a crossguard, but is that really that much of an advantage? Yes, it offers a wider area of hand protection than a tsuba buy only in one plane. It's not like you can't thrust and halfsword with a katana. I've actually seen practitioners do it as part of armored fighting in much the same way HEMA practitioners do. I don't know if it's historical, but it can be done. People always talk about the length advantage of the longsword as though there is a maximum length that katana cannot exceed. I once read an article that cited a Japanese source describing the swords of the 47 ronin (can't read Japanese, and I haven't been able to find a traslation). Some of them were 34-36 inches. Some styles today use swords of 30 or 31 inches. It wasn't until the edo period that their lengths were restricted IIRC. Armored combat would put a traditional katana at a disadvantage, since the edge wouldn't fare well if it were to bang against steel plate, but you'd be making more use of the tip anyway. As for Japanese armor. There are some historical armors that use chainmail to cover the joints and gaps just as European armor did. That's getting away from longsword vs katana and getting into knight vs samurai territory though. I have yet to see an actual sparring session between serious practitioners of the two disciplines. I've seen plenty of novices flail around with their respective weapons, neither employing any actual techniques. I'v also seen Kendo practitioners go against HEMA students. Kendo isn't a fighting art any more than foil fencing is (I know I'll get a lot of backlash on that one), but at least those guys do actual free sparring. Most JSA taught today don't. The closest they come to sparring is two-man kata. Going through a planned sequence of movements with a cooperative partner who knows what is "supposed" to happen is a vastly different thing from an actual fight. Ironically, the novice bouts tend to look very kendo-esque, consisting of a lot of downward strokes attempting hit the opponent in the head before the opponent can return the favor. This results in an awfully large percentage of doubles. JSA these days are far removed from any martial context. That's true of many "Martial" arts these days. Any time your stated goal is "self improvement and inner peace" you're not doing martial arts. You're just doing arts. Their goal is not teaching people to fight. If there are any Kyokushin people in the house, I'm not talking about you. Please don't hurt me The HEMA community, on the other hand, is not afraid to acknowledge the fact that they're reconstructing fighting arts. Maybe one day there will be a similar movement in JSA. Until that happens, I don't think we'll ever get a definitive answer as to which weapon is better. Of course that's just my opinion. General consensus is the Longsword gives more versatility. A 36" bladed Kat must be pretty wild to swing one handed compared to a similar sized Longsword.
|
|
|
Post by Onimusha on Jan 1, 2019 5:57:33 GMT
General consensus is the Longsword gives more versatility. A 36" bladed Kat must be pretty wild to swing one handed compared to a similar sized Longsword. I think that's an over-generalization. There was as much variance in katana as there was in longswords. They had varying degrees of of quality and varying handling characteristics. Again, I find that most of the speculation regarding this subject is based on the standardized versions we're familiar with today. Most of the katana that members here are familiar with are shinogi-zukuri blades of around 28" with chu-kissaki blades. They're made for hobbyists, not warriors. As such, there is less attention paid to things like single-handed handling characteristics. As for versatility, yes, HEMA practitioners use longswords in a much more versatile way than JSA practitioners tend to, but I refer you to the second paragraph of my previous post. Just because you don't typically see modern practitioners doing it doesn't mean that samurai didn't do it, and it doesn't mean that it can't be done. We're comparing two weapons here, not two fighters.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 1, 2019 19:53:42 GMT
General consensus is the Longsword gives more versatility. A 36" bladed Kat must be pretty wild to swing one handed compared to a similar sized Longsword. I think that's an over-generalization. There was as much variance in katana as there was in longswords. They had varying degrees of of quality and varying handling characteristics. Again, I find that most of the speculation regarding this subject is based on the standardized versions we're familiar with today. Most of the katana that members here are familiar with are shinogi-zukuri blades of around 28" with chu-kissaki blades. They're made for hobbyists, not warriors. As such, there is less attention paid to things like single-handed handling characteristics. As for versatility, yes, HEMA practitioners use longswords in a much more versatile way than JSA practitioners tend to, but I refer you to the second paragraph of my previous post. Just because you don't typically see modern practitioners doing it doesn't mean that samurai didn't do it, and it doesn't mean that it can't be done. We're comparing two weapons here, not two fighters. I suppose it's an individual opinion on what defines over-generalization of a general consensus...of course, generally speaking. I do agree that there was variance and that some specific examples of each would be more difficult to categorize. Put an O or a KO in front of a Wak or Kat, for instance, and your getting pretty big blade variance. I'm only thinking, on AVERAGE, your standard 4' Longsword would be a touch lighter than similar O-Katana. I guess one would also have to also talk about handling differences between the swords with their different blade shapes, weight distribution, etc...but in the end it would have to be a specific, individual sword comparison rather than general to achieve your posts aim, so I agree with that specification.
|
|
|
Post by Onimusha on Jan 1, 2019 20:29:28 GMT
I suppose it's an individual opinion on what defines over-generalization of a general consensus...of course, generally speaking. I do agree that there was variance and that some specific examples of each would be more difficult to categorize. Put an O or a KO in front of a Wak or Kat, for instance, and your getting pretty big blade variance. I'm only thinking, on AVERAGE, your standard 4' Longsword would be a touch lighter than similar O-Katana. I guess one would also have to also talk about handling differences between the swords with their different blade shapes, weight distribution, etc...but in the end it would have to be a specific, individual sword comparison rather than general to achieve your posts aim, so I agree with that specification. When I say it's an overgeneralization. I mean that it is based on the modern "standard" katana. Those factors varied so much historically for both longswords and katana that I don't think they're relevant to the discussion of longsword vs katana. Yes, there are certain longswords that would have small advantages over certain katana based on things like weight, balance, and blade design. However, the question is, do the fundamental aspects of a katana (tsuba, single edge, no pomel) make it inferior to a longsword with its fundamental characteristics (double edge, crossguard, pomel). I maintain that we don't have sufficient data to answer that.
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Jan 1, 2019 20:53:04 GMT
I suppose it's an individual opinion on what defines over-generalization of a general consensus...of course, generally speaking. I do agree that there was variance and that some specific examples of each would be more difficult to categorize. Put an O or a KO in front of a Wak or Kat, for instance, and your getting pretty big blade variance. I'm only thinking, on AVERAGE, your standard 4' Longsword would be a touch lighter than similar O-Katana. I guess one would also have to also talk about handling differences between the swords with their different blade shapes, weight distribution, etc...but in the end it would have to be a specific, individual sword comparison rather than general to achieve your posts aim, so I agree with that specification. When I say it's an overgeneralization. I mean that it is based on the modern "standard" katana. Those factors varied so much historically for both longswords and katana that I don't think they're relevant to the discussion of longsword vs katana. Yes, there are certain longswords that would have small advantages over certain katana based on things like weight, balance, and blade design. However, the question is, do the fundamental aspects of a katana (tsuba, single edge, no pomel) make it inferior to a longsword with its fundamental characteristics (double edge, crossguard, pomel). I maintain that we don't have sufficient data to answer that. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I argue this all the time. Production market katana are 'standardized at 28.5 +/- 2.0 in., but traditionally there were huge variations up until the mid/late Edo Period when things were overly homogenized and the daisho was more for decor than duty. Whenever I can be cited as stating 'katana are shorter than longswords' it is generally from the perspective of what's contemporarily available, which is a bit of a flaw with regards to arguing the technical application of the weapon.
Results were that the mean was 30.556 in., standard deviation was 3.9 in. and the median was 32.21 in. It was a negatively skewed distribution in the sense that there were more blades clocking in at 33/34 in. as far as modality goes, but there was such impressive variation that the length component went as low as 23.86 in., which really drags the mean down quite a bit.
So, with an average of 30.556 in., that's definitely at the top of the standard deviation for what the current market dictates as 'normal length' based on influence from the overly standardized Edo Period regulations.
Back to techniques, katana are actually better suited to half-swording i.m.o. since they have this nice thick blunt spine that is very friendly to your fingers. However, I do like longswords better as a solo weapon since the false edge has immense tactical advantages with parries and working from the bind; katana really become something else when paired with another blade for dual-wielding. So for me, for using only a single sword with two hands, I'd still pick a longsword, but that's entirely due to the applications of the false edge rather than any difference in blade length.
As far as the current state of JSA goes...completely agree. Many schools don't adequately give a solid basis for correct implementation, and kata can only go so far to teaching correct technique. The zen of contemporary kendo/iaido is a very respectable thing, but the true nature of swordsmanship it most certainly is not. Hence why I like contemporary HEMA so much, since it makes me hope Japanese and Chinese martial arts will swiftly follow suit as HEMA is gaining an appreciable following as the years go by. Cool times to be a fan of swordsmanship, that is for certain.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 1, 2019 20:53:09 GMT
I suppose it's an individual opinion on what defines over-generalization of a general consensus...of course, generally speaking. I do agree that there was variance and that some specific examples of each would be more difficult to categorize. Put an O or a KO in front of a Wak or Kat, for instance, and your getting pretty big blade variance. I'm only thinking, on AVERAGE, your standard 4' Longsword would be a touch lighter than similar O-Katana. I guess one would also have to also talk about handling differences between the swords with their different blade shapes, weight distribution, etc...but in the end it would have to be a specific, individual sword comparison rather than general to achieve your posts aim, so I agree with that specification. When I say it's an overgeneralization. I mean that it is based on the modern "standard" katana. Those factors varied so much historically for both longswords and katana that I don't think they're relevant to the discussion of longsword vs katana. Yes, there are certain longswords that would have small advantages over certain katana based on things like weight, balance, and blade design. However, the question is, do the fundamental aspects of a katana (tsuba, single edge, no pomel) make it inferior to a longsword with its fundamental characteristics (double edge, crossguard, pomel). I maintain that we don't have sufficient data to answer that. I see what your saying in the standardization of todays commercial katana, and that most of the comparative discussion is present day weighted between the two designs. I do feel the longsword has general advantages when engaged in open field, but that doesn't stop me from having a Chenese specialized cutter Ko-Katana under my bed for wielding indoors and in tight spaces. So the answer can be both depending on particular environment.
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Jan 1, 2019 21:05:30 GMT
When I say it's an overgeneralization. I mean that it is based on the modern "standard" katana. Those factors varied so much historically for both longswords and katana that I don't think they're relevant to the discussion of longsword vs katana. Yes, there are certain longswords that would have small advantages over certain katana based on things like weight, balance, and blade design. However, the question is, do the fundamental aspects of a katana (tsuba, single edge, no pomel) make it inferior to a longsword with its fundamental characteristics (double edge, crossguard, pomel). I maintain that we don't have sufficient data to answer that. I see what your saying in the standardization of todays commercial katana, and that most of the comparative discussion is present day weighted between the two designs. I do feel the longsword has general advantages when engaged in open field, but that doesn't stop me from having a Chenese specialized cutter Ko-Katana under my bed for wielding indoors and in tight spaces. So the answer can be both depending on particular environment. I also think having both on hand would work the best. I imagine having a ko-katana at your waist for quick qcq work while having a longsword with a specially designed scabbard and baldric setup on the back would be quite useful for any 'tactical' implementations. That's what I'd be tempted to use if the situation called for it. Oh heck, who am I kidding, we all know I'd just grab a pair of katana and give a "enough talk, have at you" complete with a cape twirl.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 1, 2019 21:17:04 GMT
When I say it's an overgeneralization. I mean that it is based on the modern "standard" katana. Those factors varied so much historically for both longswords and katana that I don't think they're relevant to the discussion of longsword vs katana. Yes, there are certain longswords that would have small advantages over certain katana based on things like weight, balance, and blade design. However, the question is, do the fundamental aspects of a katana (tsuba, single edge, no pomel) make it inferior to a longsword with its fundamental characteristics (double edge, crossguard, pomel). I maintain that we don't have sufficient data to answer that. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I argue this all the time. Production market katana are 'standardized at 28.5 +/- 2.0 in., but traditionally there were huge variations up until the mid/late Edo Period when things were overly homogenized and the daisho was more for decor than duty. Whenever I can be cited as stating 'katana are shorter than longswords' it is generally from the perspective of what's contemporarily available, which is a bit of a flaw with regards to arguing the technical application of the weapon.
Results were that the mean was 30.556 in., standard deviation was 3.9 in. and the median was 32.21 in. It was a negatively skewed distribution in the sense that there were more blades clocking in at 33/34 in. as far as modality goes, but there was such impressive variation that the length component went as low as 23.86 in., which really drags the mean down quite a bit.
So, with an average of 30.556 in., that's definitely at the top of the standard deviation for what the current market dictates as 'normal length' based on influence from the overly standardized Edo Period regulations.
Back to techniques, katana are actually better suited to half-swording i.m.o. since they have this nice thick blunt spine that is very friendly to your fingers. However, I do like longswords better as a solo weapon since the false edge has immense tactical advantages with parries and working from the bind; katana really become something else when paired with another blade for dual-wielding. So for me, for using only a single sword with two hands, I'd still pick a longsword, but that's entirely due to the applications of the false edge rather than any difference in blade length.
As far as the current state of JSA goes...completely agree. Many schools don't adequately give a solid basis for correct implementation, and kata can only go so far to teaching correct technique. The zen of contemporary kendo/iaido is a very respectable thing, but the true nature of swordsmanship it most certainly is not. Hence why I like contemporary HEMA so much, since it makes me hope Japanese and Chinese martial arts will swiftly follow suit as HEMA is gaining an appreciable following as the years go by. Cool times to be a fan of swordsmanship, that is for certain.
Your so right regarding variance, as technically blade length diff could be HUGE if only looking at the Shyaku (11.93 inches) measurement. Under 11.93 inches and it is a tanto, one to two Shyaku and it is a Wak, with anything over two Shyaku (23.86 inches) a Kat. The "O's & KO's" game is significant, as there is a pretty monstrous difference between a Ko-Wak with a 12" blade and a O-Wak pushing 24".
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 1, 2019 21:25:11 GMT
I see what your saying in the standardization of todays commercial katana, and that most of the comparative discussion is present day weighted between the two designs. I do feel the longsword has general advantages when engaged in open field, but that doesn't stop me from having a Chenese specialized cutter Ko-Katana under my bed for wielding indoors and in tight spaces. So the answer can be both depending on particular environment. I also think having both on hand would work the best. I imagine having a ko-katana at your waist for quick qcq work while having a longsword with a specially designed scabbard and baldric setup on the back would be quite useful for any 'tactical' implementations. That's what I'd be tempted to use if the situation called for it. Oh heck, who am I kidding, we all know I'd just grab a pair of katana and give a "enough talk, have at you" complete with a cape twirl. You are the resident duel wielding "two fister", so that's right in your wheelhouse. If your in a bar with a Guinness (or any alcoholic beverage) in each hand, it's called "Irish Handcuffs", btw. I've been thinking about a shorter tanto shaped blade in my strong hand to duel wield after I purchased a CS Hachiwari (skull breaker) offhand weapon this Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Jan 1, 2019 22:35:43 GMT
I also think having both on hand would work the best. I imagine having a ko-katana at your waist for quick qcq work while having a longsword with a specially designed scabbard and baldric setup on the back would be quite useful for any 'tactical' implementations. That's what I'd be tempted to use if the situation called for it. Oh heck, who am I kidding, we all know I'd just grab a pair of katana and give a "enough talk, have at you" complete with a cape twirl. You are the resident duel wielding "two fister", so that's right in your wheelhouse. If your in a bar with a Guinness (or any alcoholic beverage) in each hand, it's called "Irish Handcuffs", btw. I've been thinking about a shorter tanto shaped blade in my strong hand to duel wield after I purchased a CS Hachiwari (skull breaker) offhand weapon this Christmas. Reminds me of what some more 'party-prone' friends I had years ago did, only they taped the beer mugs to the hand so that you couldn't put it down til it was put down. I just sipped whiskey and ate potatoes like a true Irishman.
That would be a fun combination, how are you liking the hachiwari lately? Looks like such a fun parrying weapon my main gauche gets a little jealous
|
|