Single edge vs Double Edge [Archive]

Ken-Hawaii

13th April 2007, 22:56

Jack, the answer lies somewhere between what you expect a sword to do on the battlefield, & the physics of how you build & use a blade in the first place.

Let's start with the physics. I'm not sure why you think a double-edged blade could cut faster; I think the reverse is true. The kinematics of swinging a sword are complex, to say the least. As a Fencing Master, even trying to describe the motions of a simple foil, epee, or saber is almost too much to model, as we've found in computer gaming & character rigging. A double-edged blade is, by necessity, heavier than a single-edged weapon. Throughout history, almost all double-edged swords were swung two-handed, as it is the wrist action that aligns the cutting edges, & that takes more muscle than most people could manage with one hand. And if you think that a two-handed swing with a heavier weapon is faster than one-handed with a lighter one, then read no further...:rolleyes:.

Okay, once you cut into someone with a blade, you've either killed the SOB, or you'll want to get the blade out of his body/armor/whatever as fast as possible so you can hack at him again. I don't see where a two-edged blade offers any notable advantage there. Did you happen to see the show "Fight Science" on National Geographic? The premise of that show was to determine what the ideal weapon is - & they chose the katana.

From a battlefield perspective, two-edged/two-handed swords were used quite handily by all kinds of warriors in Europe (primarily) against various forms & types of chain-mail & armor. In that age, having a heavier sword was a benefit to (a) hit harder & (b) cut into or through the mail/armor. I again don't see where a two-edged sword was a large advantage, but a few hundred years of Vikings must have had some reason for choosing it.

From an Iaido standpoint, Douglas & pgsmith are correct: do what your sensei tells you to do. The MJER that my wife & I study pushes the concept of edge control, & I'm fairly certain that having two edges to worry about wouldn't help my form very much...:p!

Neil Yamamoto

13th April 2007, 23:07

The major advantage to a single edge blade to a double edge blade is you reduce the chance of cutting yourself by 50%. :rolleyes: :p

DDATFUS

13th April 2007, 23:23

Jack,

the advantages of any weapon depend entirely on the circumstances for which it is designed. As I understand it, the tachi was originally designed for mounted combat. This brings up a couple of important features. First, if I'm fighting on horseback I want a weapon designed for one-handed use. Even if I can guide the horse with my knees, I still want to be able to keep one hand free. The second important feature is that attacks from horseback seem to favor a single-edge, curved sword to get the maximum advantage from the combined momentum of horse and rider. Look how often the single-edged, curved blade has been used-- the European calvary sabre, the shamshir, the tulwar, and all their relatives. As I understand it, all of these swords were favored by mounted fighters.

There is probably a set of circumstances for which the katana is a superior weapon, and a set of circumstances for which a double-edged sword is preferable. Norman's book The Fighting Man of Japan touches on some of this; his opinion is very valuable as he was a professional military officer who worked in the Japanese military education system and studied kendo back in the days when you could still find a few kendo teachers who had been blooded in real life. Also, Richard Burton wrote an excellent book that discusses the evolution of different swords for different circumstances.

Joshua Lerner

13th April 2007, 23:45

The major advantage to a single edge blade to a double edge blade is you reduce the chance of cutting yourself by 50%. :rolleyes: :p

But that also reduces the chance of cutting your opponent by 50%.

Oh, wait a second - the Japanese are short, and so only count as 50% of an opponent anyway, so by using a single edged sword, your percent chance of cutting your opponent is still at 100% as long as they are Japanese.

But there is still that 50% chance left of cutting yourself. I guess the solution would be to make a sword that only has an edge on the side that faces your enemy.

Shindai

14th April 2007, 01:51

That, Joshua, or not swing it at yourself :D

Andy Watson

14th April 2007, 09:14

But that also reduces the chance of cutting your opponent by 50%.

Oh, wait a second - the Japanese are short, and so only count as 50% of an opponent anyway, so by using a single edged sword, your percent chance of cutting your opponent is still at 100% as long as they are Japanese.

But there is still that 50% chance left of cutting yourself. I guess the solution would be to make a sword that only has an edge on the side that faces your enemy.

You guys crack me up!!! :D

WillsZenith

14th April 2007, 11:16

LOL !!

As with most swords ther are pros and cons, the japanese sword originally was doubled edged versions of chinese swords, and it steadily evolved into a horseback sword for one handed use and etc etc the rest we all know.

I think also how the japanese sword remained fairly constant in design compared to european swords varying designs ( broadsword, longsword,fencing, sabres, etc etc) is more a testement to how adaptable a katana can be, the various universe of koryu forms show how the sword can be applied in all sorts of ways, where as european swords seem to fall in and out of favour, perhaps because military tactics and technology changed or perhaps the sword simply had limited use.

anyway thats my rather uneducated look at it, feel free to rip me apart if ive spouted a load of bunk.

Jack Chen

15th April 2007, 11:52

Thank you everyone for your valuable insights. :)

Let's start with the physics. I'm not sure why you think a double-edged blade could cut faster; I think the reverse is true.

The reason why I said a double-edge sword can, so-called, cut faster is because, after a kesagiri, one doesn't have to turn the edge upwards to do a kiriage. He can do, European terminology, a false-edge cut?

WillsZenith

15th April 2007, 13:06

Thank you everyone for your valuable insights. :)

The reason why I said a double-edge sword can, so-called, cut faster is because, after a kesagiri, one doesn't have to turn the edge upwards to do a kiriage. He can do, European terminology, a false-edge cut?

I see your logic. but even a doubled edged european sword, say a standard medievel sword isnt really designed in shape to deliver a kesagiri cut, think more in curvature , not so much in edge as in the actual shape of the blade.

Again it comes down to what part of the blade is doing the cutting, kesagiri is a fine example of the zenith and arc of the cut up and then repeated on the down stroke.

My own belief is that europeon swords worked on different arcs on cutting, though it would be intresting to compare a calvary sabre or persian swords to a katana.

and when you do get the chance to see a dusty old 7thdan do kesagiri, it really doesnt seem that a double edged sword would be any quicker!

anyway its just my views so feel free to correct me lol

Andy Watson

15th April 2007, 14:59

WillsZenith

15th April 2007, 18:35

I have to agree with andy on this one , quite simply even using a european sword to deliver the sort of cuts that the japanese sword does in varying kata would probably do yourself more harm then an apponent.

And as shown in a recent koryu seminar with ishido sensei ( Tips glass to andys translating) flexibilty and grip is another factor that has to be fathomed in, I unfortunatly dont have much experience swinging longswords and claymores around so have no concept on how the techniques i have been shown in iaido,kendo and even my brief swings of a naginata would apply.

But at the end of the day swords had to fulfill a wide range of uses, so its not so much of what is the 'king of swords' , its more what sword is best suited to the job.

In my case a scottish claymore and cheap beer.

kind regards to you all

Shindai

15th April 2007, 19:02

Ironic, I saw a documentary this afternoon that compared a broadsword to a katana. They both cut very much alike through ... that straw stuff. I was quite surprised. I would imagine though with the weight, if the plan was to do a kiriage to follow the kesagiri, it would be incredibly weak, and very slow, given that you'd have to stop and reverse.

pgsmith

15th April 2007, 19:13

I furthermore don't believe that one would be able to deliver an effective reverse cut especially given that European swords were not renowned for their sharpness. Taking kesa giri as an example, if you did do an upward-diagonal cut, how strong a downward stroke do you think you would be able to deliver with the forearm edge of the blade...not very I suspect. The reverse is true - do a downward diagonal cut and would you feel like you could do an upward cut with the edge which is now pointing at the opponent.
Gotta contradict you guys here. To be completely fair, I used to think the same way until I actually tried it. I went to a European Swordsmanship event last year as a couple of friends of mine, Dave Wilson and Jim Alvarez of Mugen Dachi, were teaching a "how to cut tatami" class. That seems to be one of the things that the European sword guys don't do much of. At the end of the seminar, Jim handed me his bastard sword and told me to have at it. Cutting felt exactly the same as with a katana, except that I could cut in both directions. It was a simple matter to cut a single tatami mat by simply snapping the wrists back and forth. Lots of fun, and gave me a much better insight into European style swords. I was told that I did the first ever mizu gaeshi cut that anyone had ever heard of with a European sword. :)

Jack Chen

16th April 2007, 14:05

You guys might wanna check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx2umUcEsE8

cxt

16th April 2007, 14:48

Still seems to me to be essentially a "what if" kinda of discussion.

A pontential application that one would have to bled for to really prove--and I don't certainly don't intend to be the one that does it ;)

The YouTube stuff seems silly to me--people jacking around with movements that they would never be able to pull off, much less attempt if both guys had sharps.

gendzwil

16th April 2007, 14:54

Nothing more attractive than a fanny pack over a t-shirt, I must say...

Andy Watson

16th April 2007, 17:25

You guys might wanna check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx2umUcEsE8

I appreciate these guys enthusiasm to research this stuff, but there was nothing conclusive or convincing at all about this film. The argument still stands that, yes, you might have cut my arm but I have just stoved your head in and you are dead - that seems to be a much more conclusive statement about swordsmanship.

The Japanese sword may well have been sharp enough to cause severe wounds with only a light touch and movement by the attacker or the defender but little satisfaction you would have watching your opponent slowly bleed while the last breath of life escapes from your cloven head. That is surely the difference between touching, scratching and cutting.

Still such simple conclusions though. I don't believe that JSA stress the need for brute force at all so why is this coming up for question? Efficiency, technical correctness (and therefore hopefully accuracy) and speed of movement are the physical factors which are stressed. Coupled with this the need to develop reactions free from long mental processes lead to effective technique...don't they? I think only a good kendoka or similar fencer would be able to answer this and I am neither.

Baio

16th April 2007, 17:43

i wonder if they made some nice pig knuckle after that demonstration

Andy Watson

16th April 2007, 17:49

Wodabout the poor little piggies running round with only three legs!?!

WillsZenith

17th April 2007, 18:06

Wodabout the poor little piggies running round with only three legs!?!

sounds like tarantino does nursery rhymes

Risto R

28th May 2007, 11:53

The question is a bit irrelevant as both double-edged and one edged have been used through out history. Sometimes a double edged weapon was pereferred and sometimes one edged weapon was used. This subject would better suit forums like SFI. I really don't have enough information to really make good comparisons, but there seems to be some misconceptions about european swords showing in this thread.

A great number of double edged swords were used one handed. From the earliest celtic spathae to the renessaince cut&thrust swords. So obviously there really is no problem using them one handed. And this would of course free the other hand to do something else (like hold a shield). As a side note vikings had also one edged swords. I don't understand why would d-e swords have to be heavier than single edged? Could you Ken elaborate on that a little? BTW that Fight Science bit was crap. Sorry. There is no "ideal weapon". Only weapons that are best suited to the cultural frame that they are used in. The point about double edged weapons being better suited to fight against armour is moot too. You don't bash through armour, you go around it. While it is true that some european cut&thrust weapons are better suited for _thrusting_ through maille armour as you can better place power behind a straight sword, does not make katana any worse as it didn't have to do such things. And you could go through maille with a straight single edged sword just as easy. European swords were sharpened to meet the needs of the user. If you have a war sword that was likely to meet (in accidental use of course!) a lot of metal armour in battle you would have it a little less sharp. If you would use your other sword using half-swording you would see that only the first foot of the blade would be really sharp. And if you would be going to an unarmoured duel, you would see that you used the sharpest sword you had. Although you probably wouldn't want it to be razor sharp either. I've been told that one of the benefits of swords with a really pronounced curvature is that you can cut realtively effectively with them, even if you have no prior experience. This is in relation to straight swords, because the sword makes a cutting motion naturally and you don't have to actively cut with the sword. If you train a little then there is really not a lot of difference. Of course a curved blades let you do some nifty stuff you can't do with a straight sword. And vice versa. Also making one edged swords is cheaper than making double edged swords.

Here's some videos about cutting and using the "slow and blunt" european sword. :D

http://www.albion-swords.com/cutting-knight.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DhjFUOG6Y

Cheers,

Ken-Hawaii

28th May 2007, 21:26

Maro

28th May 2007, 22:56

The main obstacle to double edge tachi/Katana was the method of heat treatment. The Curve is partly a by-product of the quench. It is possible to make a curved, double edged katana but it would make the process more complicated - why fix what's not broken.

Most Western Cavalry Sabres and Ottoman blades had shapened back edges for at least a 3rd of the blade.

As for weapons against armour, in both Western and Eastern locales, the sword was never the principle weapon against armour.

Risto R

29th May 2007, 07:08

That's a good question, Risto. I've never run the calculations on whether a double-edged blade would have to be heavier than a single-edge, but my initial feeling is that a thousand years of Japanese swordsmiths would likely have adopted double-edged tachi if there was a good reason (other than lack of good steel, of course). As many of our MJER iaido waza depend on using the right hand on the sword's mune, I personally prefer single-edged katana so I don't have to keep counting my fingers. :rolleyes:
And a few thousand years of european blacksmithing that came to the conclusion that they both are viable choises is not to be taken to account? ;) So you base you claim in a feeling. That's fine by me. There are _a lot_ of techniques using half-swording where you take a double edged sword by the blade with your left hand. See the video I posted earlier. There's nothing to it. I've seen it done with sharps with and without gloves.

But when it comes to your comment about going around armor rather than bashing it, I definitely disagree.
We'll you're right that you can give an impact just hitting the armour, but you are not going to kill anyone (who know anything about swordfighting in armour) wearing armour by just hitting him with a sword. The japanese koruy, that I know about, that teach fighting against armoured opponents tells you to do exactly what I said: go around the armour.

I certainly wouldn't take a rapier to a duel with armor, at least not as my primary weapon, but force = 1/2 MV^2 applies no matter what your opponent is wearing.
Of course you wouldn't take a rapier to a duel with armour! It doesn't have enough stiffness to go through any kind of armour apart from the thinnest doublets. The issue of armour penetration is a lot more complex than just one equation on kinetic energy. Let's not get in to that.

If I follow your train of thought, Risto, a nuclear bomb would be more ideal than just about anything else....
No. You got it wrong. I said:"Only weapons that are best suited to the cultural frame that they are used in." I might add the variant of situation .You don't want to use a sword in a phone booth or just a dagger in formation combat.

That show's purpose, as I see it, was to take a scientific look at what the strengths & weaknesses are of hand-held weapons throughout time & various fighting styles. The katana simply has fewer weaknesses than the other weaponry which, by their definition, makes it "ideal." Nathan, any comments?
Oh, come on! Is there really anyone on this board that really thinks that tv-show has anything to do with science? I'm not going to go through everything that was wrong with that show, instead I'll redirect you to a thread on SFI, that has some criticism on the show.

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=70707

Swordy

29th May 2007, 16:28

Greetings Risto. :)

I'll put in a few inputs.

Originally Posted by Ken-Hawaii
That's a good question, Risto. I've never run the calculations on whether a double-edged blade would have to be heavier than a single-edge, but my initial feeling is that a thousand years of Japanese swordsmiths would likely have adopted double-edged tachi if there was a good reason (other than lack of good steel, of course). As many of our MJER iaido waza depend on using the right hand on the sword's mune, I personally prefer single-edged katana so I don't have to keep counting my fingers.

Originally Posted by Risto R
And a few thousand years of european blacksmithing that came to the conclusion that they both are viable choises is not to be taken to account? So you base you claim in a feeling. That's fine by me. There are _a lot_ of techniques using half-swording where you take a double edged sword by the blade with your left hand. See the video I posted earlier. There's nothing to it. I've seen it done with sharps with and without gloves.

There might be a reason for this... Take the example above of doing a kesagiri followed by kiriage with the back edge of the blade. Examining the type of grip, its more or less like a flicking grip or a frisbee throwing grip.

Its a lousy way to swing the sword!! Your wrist will not be able to resist the strain if your sword gets parried strongly. Your sword will most probably fly from your hands. :) It might have its merits when catching your opponent by surprise but... using this technique too much will ultimately become a dangerous habit.

Actually, japanese sword smiths do have techniques for creating double edge blades. Take a look at Yari(Japanese Spears) for example.

As mentioned above, there also the kogarasu maru swords though they are quite rare.

I doubt if anyone can tell why double edge swords didn't catch on with japanese weapons. But i'm sure they did experiment with the concept and... perhaps they didn't like it?

Originally Posted by Ken-Hawaii
But when it comes to your comment about going around armor rather than bashing it, I definitely disagree.

Originally Posted by Risto R
We'll you're right that you can give an impact just hitting the armour, but you are not going to kill anyone (who know anything about swordfighting in armour) wearing armour by just hitting him with a sword. The japanese koruy, that I know about, that teach fighting against armoured opponents tells you to do exactly what I said: go around the armour.

Originally Posted by Ken-Hawaii
I certainly wouldn't take a rapier to a duel with armor, at least not as my primary weapon, but force = 1/2 MV^2 applies no matter what your opponent is wearing.

Originally Posted by Risto R
Of course you wouldn't take a rapier to a duel with armour! It doesn't have enough stiffness to go through any kind of armour apart from the thinnest doublets. The issue of armour penetration is a lot more complex than just one equation on kinetic energy. Let's not get in to that.

I suppose if the armor is soft enough to be pierced or has a lot of seams, you should take the rapier. You'll probably ruin the sword but hey, its life and death. Heavy armor, eh? You want a bigger weapon to stagger the man in the can... or just enough force to dent armor and cause it to mulfunction/become uncomfortable/lock the joints to restrict movement. You could even throw a flask of burning oil to cook him. :p There is probably a thousand things you can do. If you want to go thru or around your opponent's armor its truly up to your... strategy. The kenjutsu koryu just deals with sword techniques.

:)

Cheers,

CEB

29th May 2007, 18:32

...
As for weapons against armour, in both Western and Eastern locales, the sword was never the principle weapon against armour.

FWIW

In the west armour design drove sword design. Armor changed a lot so sword designs changed a lot. Eastern armour designs were pretty static.

The rapier arose due to the rise of the gun. The priary purpose of the rapiers cutting edge was so your apponent wouldn't grap you blade.

Brian Owens

29th May 2007, 21:07

...I doubt if anyone can tell why double edge swords didn't catch on with japanese weapons. But i'm sure they did experiment with the concept and... perhaps they didn't like it?
More than just an experiment.

The earliest Japanese swords were relatively short, double-edged, straight swords used mainly for thrusting; similar to the Roman gladius.

With the switch from copper to steel, longer swords came to be, but still straight and double-edged, and still used mainly for thrusting.

It was around 900CE that the major shift to curved swords took place, and early examples of those, like the Kogarasumaru mentioned above, still had a double edge at the top third of the blade, because that was the "expected" paradigm.

Single-edged swords became the norm later, because the methods of use that evolved with the evolution in the swords themselves made such swords better suited to that form.

Such is my limited understanding, at any rate.

Maro

29th May 2007, 22:37

FWIW

In the west armour design drove sword design. Armor changed a lot so sword designs changed a lot. Eastern armour designs were pretty static.

The rapier arose due to the rise of the gun. The priary purpose of the rapiers cutting edge was so your apponent wouldn't grap you blade.

It's true that armour may have driven sword design but it was never the principe weapon against it.

CEB

30th May 2007, 01:16

It's true that armour may have driven sword design but it was never the principe weapon against it.

Sure it was it ....at times. The primary close combat heavy infantry weapon of the classic Roman legion was the gladius. The short sword allowed tighter movement than was allowed with a spear phalanx.

Max Chouinard

30th May 2007, 02:43

Err, actualy armors did changed a lot, but not during the 200 years of the pax Tokugawa, which is why people tend to see japanese weaponry as static.

A sword won't cut through armor, be it european or japanese, we can agree on that. It can create exploitable spots though, but thrusts are still a better idea.

Risto R

30th May 2007, 07:48

There might be a reason for this... Take the example above of doing a kesagiri followed by kiriage with the back edge of the blade. Examining the type of grip, its more or less like a flicking grip or a frisbee throwing grip.

Its a lousy way to swing the sword!! Your wrist will not be able to resist the strain if your sword gets parried strongly. Your sword will most probably fly from your hands. :) It might have its merits when catching your opponent by surprise but... using this technique too much will ultimately become a dangerous habit.

Hello!

I googled for the terms kiriage and kesagiri and I agree that it is not the most powerful of blows, but... There are so many ways of doing false/back edge cuts. And you _can_ keep the sword in your hands even if you get parried strongly. Trust me. You can read some explanations on how to do back edge cuts here:

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=67188

You can see a false edge cut or blow also in the video I posted earlier at 00:42

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DhjFUOG6Y

As for the effectiveness of said cut with a sinlge handed sword watch the video I posted earlier:

http://www.albion-swords.com/images/video/James/James%20triple%20cut.wmv

I agree with the comments about swords dealing with armour. There certainly are better weapons created to go through armour than swords.

Brian Owens

30th May 2007, 12:44

...I googled for the terms kiriage and kesagiri and I agree that it is not the most powerful of blows...
You are clearly not experienced in Japanese sword arts.

Kesagiri and kiriage are among the strongest cuts in the repertoire...if done properly.

But they won't be strong if you're cutting with the "thumb-side" of the sword leading.

The way one transitions rapidly from one to the other is simple: cut with the cutting edge that's on the "finger-side" of the grip whether you have a single- or double-edged blade, then -- at the end of the cut's arc -- flip the blade over as you're reversing directions and make the second cut -- upwards or downwards -- with the same side of the blade. You don't stop the blade in flight so much as you make a small circle with it in a non-stopping ellipse.

This flipping/reversing movement is actually faster that stopping the blade, and then pulling it backward into the next cut with the opposite surface leading.

Doing the proper technique also uses the stronger muscles in the arm, shoulder, and chest both for gripping and for "swinging" the sword.

For some good examples of the kesagiri/kiriage (AKA kesagiri/gyakukesa, etc.) combination, go to YouTube and search for "James Williams."

Max Chouinard

30th May 2007, 13:28

I couldn't have said better myself. You don't really have to stop the blade to do a proper kiriage. James Williams also does tameshigiri with a double edged one handed sword, and the false edge cuts do not seem faster than a good kiriage.

Swordy

30th May 2007, 14:10

Hmm... sorry Risto, with all respect to everyone, the swordforum thread didn't convince me at all...

None of them mentioned anything about how the backsword swing will hold up against a solid parry. (sorry i just skimmed thru some parts of the thread posted.)

And there is another thing i find disturbing... this is #46 post by Paul Wagner from the swordforum link you pasted.

Th English backsword texts do mention something about cutting (or more precisely, not cutting properly) which shows it was something on an issue. Godfrey noted that of the ham-fist grip;

“when you come to make a Cut, your Gripe moves and slips round your Palm, and you lose your directing Edge…where I have seen one Blow judiciously given…I have seen ten lost by falling on the Flat.”

This rather argues that they *weren't* test cutting, though they really should have been.

The c.1800 broadsword texts often talk about the importance of edge alignment, especially since most practice of the time was done with singlesticks. Typical is Taylor:

"by practising with either a sabre, broad sword, cut and thrust sword, or hanger; and gentlemen will by that means become accustomed to the weight of the weapon, and accurate in carrying a true edge; whereas if they practise only with a stick, the weight of the sword will render it so unwieldy...as to frustrate almost every offensive movement"

Allanson-Winn also complains that soldiers of his time don't cut properly and break their swords, and explains how learning to cut was vitally important, especially if you want to cut through armour and helmets:

“A straight-bladed broad-sword requires what may be termed an artificial draw, either backward or forward, in order that a cut may have its full effect. Of course the draw back is by far the most common form of the ‘draw’…if the hand retains its position throughout the entire sweep, [the edge] will meet the object to be cut simply as a hit, not as a cut. This is just what we want to avoid…

No matter how extended the arm may be when commencing the cut - and the more extended the better in the case of a long, heavy sword - the ‘draw’ should always come in towards the end of the sweep, the first past of which is merely intended to give the required impetus to the effective portion of the cut…It is well to remember that a mere hit with the true edge of a straight-bladed sword is little better than a blow with a heavy stick having an oval section.”

Does this mean that i can turn my body in a way to make contact with much of that flat and get some sort of a 'sword hickey' instead of getting cut? Hehe, im just kidding :p

You cannot ignore this bit of historical (I hope) info!! The odds of failing the cut is quite high! It presents a second problem to the first one i posted. The blade alignment will be very difficult because of limited wrist movement with this type of swing. I really doubt if this limitation can be overcome thru practice simply because its just the way the human wrist works.

As it has always been said, always cut strongly and never in a half hearted manner. But again, i don't doubt the effectiveness of this type of swing when used wisely.

Btw, is it really that difficult to turn the katana edge when making a follow up cut? I think its a problem for long and heavy swords like a Zweihander but not much with the katana.

:)

Respectfully,

Swordy

30th May 2007, 14:19

Btw, is it really that difficult to turn the katana edge when making a follow up cut? I think its a problem for long and heavy swords like a Zweihander but not much with the katana. Omg, maybe this might be a possible reason for double edge swords... ^_^

To conserve energy?

Kyro Lantsberger

30th May 2007, 16:08

Its nice to see this thread turned out mostly ok. This sort of question often degenerates into the "what if?" discussion.

I think these questions serve to show us how academic study and hands on training go together in some ways, but each hold their own different spheres in others.

It is good that cultural differences are being taken note of here. The question of blade types ultimately revolves around issues of history -- metallurgical culture(technology and skill), martial culture, and other things Im sure Im omitting.

pgsmith

30th May 2007, 16:53

The blade alignment will be very difficult because of limited wrist movement with this type of swing. I really doubt if this limitation can be overcome thru practice simply because its just the way the human wrist works
Suppositions are always difficult at best. I cut with a European style sword for the first time last year. There was a large gathering of instructors and seminars for the WMA world in a neighboring town, and a couple of friends of mine were going to conduct a seminar on test cutting, which isn't usually done much in the WMA world. After the seminar, I was invited to try out my friend's bastard sword on full tatami omote targets from Mugen Dachi. I found it absurdly simple to cut both forward and backward. Not really any faster than a kesa/gyaku kesa, but it was a lot less effort since it didn't require flipping your hand positioning.

Omg, maybe this might be a possible reason for double edge swords... ^_^
You mean other than the fact that this is what they were used to and what the swords evolved into? Trying to pin a single reason on something as organic and complex as sword shape is simply an exercise in futility. It's much like trying to find a single reason for lederhosen, or hakama. You can't take any historical trend out of context and apply a single reason to it.

Swordy

30th May 2007, 17:59

Originally Posted by Swordy
The blade alignment will be very difficult because of limited wrist movement with this type of swing. I really doubt if this limitation can be overcome thru practice simply because its just the way the human wrist works

Originally Posted by pgsmith
Suppositions are always difficult at best. I cut with a European style sword for the first time last year. There was a large gathering of instructors and seminars for the WMA world in a neighboring town, and a couple of friends of mine were going to conduct a seminar on test cutting, which isn't usually done much in the WMA world. After the seminar, I was invited to try out my friend's bastard sword on full tatami omote targets from Mugen Dachi. I found it absurdly simple to cut both forward and backward. Not really any faster than a kesa/gyaku kesa, but it was a lot less effort since it didn't require flipping your hand positioning.

I see... but try doing this to a moving enemy. You'll have to try to adjust your blade angle in mid swing with regards to the changing position of your moving target... but you will find out that you cant because your wrist is in the way or up to its limits. So you will probably end up getting parried plus your sword may come off or you'll have to just miss completely or be content on just slapping your enemy with the flat. Either way, you'll get a nice counter attack from your enemy that has high probability of hitting you.

Sorry, It's still just supposition and opinion.

Originally Posted by Swordy
Omg, maybe this might be a possible reason for double edge swords... ^_^

Originally Posted by pgsmith
You mean other than the fact that this is what they were used to and what the swords evolved into? Trying to pin a single reason on something as organic and complex as sword shape is simply an exercise in futility. It's much like trying to find a single reason for lederhosen, or hakama. You can't take any historical trend out of context and apply a single reason to it.

Sorry again, i said 'maybe', 'might' and 'possible'. I really don't know the reason for the double edge. Except that I just realized now that it must have become increasingly more usefull as the weapon became heavier. This way you dont need to turn the weapon which takes time with a heavy weapon. All that is needed is just reverse the direction without altering the grip. If this was all apparent to you guys in the beginning then i bow to you all in my noobness.

What i also meant there was that katanas are not too long and heavy so perhaps there is less reason for a double edge katana as compared to a Zweihander based on what realized (for myself) above.

I dunno if history specifically explain why these type of things evolved this way. Its still just my opinion. So take it or leave it. Then again, you are free to say anything that may change my opinion.

Respectfully,

gendzwil

30th May 2007, 18:41

Paul, did you try any reverse cuts two-handed? The video of James doing them showed only one-handed cuts.

cxt

30th May 2007, 19:29

Still stuck back on "can" and "should"

Pretty sure that you "can" cut one way and "backcut" in the reverse of the first cut with a two edged sword.

("Pretty sure" because I tried it. ;) )

Not at all sure that its significantly faster than turning the blade, also I have some concerns about its effective use--something about the stress back across the thumb instead of the fingers just feels strange--and not in a good way.

Sure it "can" be done, just not sure--outside of some pretty specific "special" circumstance--why you would want too.

Thats just me though--could always be wrong--and other folks may have very different outcomes.

Kyro Lantsberger

30th May 2007, 20:44

Ive noticed that the discussion of double edged blades is gravitating towards reverse edge cuts, and cutting back immediately after a missed cut.

This is an introductory article on the reconstructed German Longsword systems.

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_arms_gls.php

Scroll down to the section on Mastercuts/Meisterhau and check out the zwerchau and scheitelhau which both utilize the false-back edge in a twisting/switching movement. These are the sorts of things that a double edge does differently than a single edge.

gendzwil

30th May 2007, 20:59

CEB

30th May 2007, 21:02

.....Except that I just realized now that it must have become increasingly more usefull as the weapon became heavier. This way you dont need to turn the weapon which takes time with a heavy weapon. All that is needed is just reverse the direction without altering the grip. If this was all apparent to you guys in the beginning then i bow to you all in my noobness.
....
Not all twin edge swords were big.

Gladius and basket-hilts are amoung the first that come to mind.

pgsmith

30th May 2007, 21:51

Paul, did you try any reverse cuts two-handed? The video of James doing them showed only one-handed cuts.
Hey Neil,
The sword I was using had a hand-and-a-half handle, so it was no problem doing two handed cuts since that's what I was used to. It surprised me how easy it was to cut with though.

I really don't know the reason for the double edge. Except that I just realized now that it must have become increasingly more usefull as the weapon became heavier. This way you dont need to turn the weapon which takes time with a heavy weapon. All that is needed is just reverse the direction without altering the grip.
This is what I meant earlier when I said that suppositions are difficult. First, the bastard sword that I used was lighter than my usual katana, despite the blade being about five inches longer. Second, it would actually be more difficult to reverse direction with a heavier sword. When cutting kesa/gyaku kesa, the grip never changes. You shift the momentum of the sword into a tight arc to get it going the other way. In performing a back cut with a double edged sword, you actually have to stop the blade completely and get it going in the other direction. This is why I said that it wasn't any faster to back cut.

Kyro Lantsberger

30th May 2007, 23:25

I read the description of scheitelhau, all it says is that you dodge an incoming leg strike and respond with a cut to the head. This is sune-nuki-men in my terminology and is independant of how many edges you have. I've used it against naginata in isshu-jiai.

I wasn't real clear on what zwerchau was. It looks like it might be a simultaneous block and cut to the head. The description said that you would use one or the other edge depending but I wasn't real clear on the why.

Oops. My bad. Schielhau uses the false edge, that is what I get by reading threads when I should be, um working.

Anyway, you can video or image search those two terms and find a number of different groups interpretations, as well as examples from historical artwork, the point being that the hands/blade will twist or turn over to use the "opposite edge."

Chris Thompson

31st May 2007, 02:30

At least one type of European sword could be made with either a double edge or a single edge- the broadsword/backsword. If it was made with a double edge it was called a broadsword, and if it was made with a single edge it was called a backsword. Broadswords and backswords are used exactly the same way, and no broadsword manual I am aware of advocates the use of false-edge attacks except as a very occasional trick. (For instance, in "Gorman's Throw," the swordsman lowers his blade as an invitation, and when the other guy takes the bait he makes a false edge cut to the hand from below.) Essentially, despite the fact that there were two edges, only one was used 99% of the time.
As for the relative weights of single-edged and double-edged swords, I have handled a number of 16th-18th century broadswords and backswords. One Black Watch issue Drury backsword from around 1760 was the lightest of them all, but in general the backswords were heavier than the broadswords, sometimes considerably so. So it would appear to not be the case that double-edged weapons are heavier. Also, it is not true that most double-edged European weapons were handled with two hands. The broadsword was an extremely common weapon in its time, and was always used with one hand.

-Chris Thompson

K. Cantwell

31st May 2007, 03:00

Except that I just realized now that it must have become increasingly more usefull as the weapon became heavier. This way you dont need to turn the weapon which takes time with a heavy weapon. All that is needed is just reverse the direction without altering the grip. If this was all apparent to you guys in the beginning then i bow to you all in my noobness.

Not as much time as you may think. For example, naginata (a big heavy weapon) makes generous use of changing the blade orientation. I came face-to-face with a backslash last week and it was pretty darn fast. The changing of my teacher's wrist was simply organic to the movement and left no timing opening I could exploit. (It's a trained skill.) Again, this was a big honking naginata.

Keep in the mind that the enemy is dealing with your first attack, so if you made good use of ma-ai, the miliseconds it may take change your wrist wouldn't necessarily be fatal. If changing your wrist would cost you your life, don't do it. Don't get cut and do something else.

As was said above, I thinking looking for one "Ah-ha!" reason for double vs. single edge isn't really a viable inquiry. Defesive resources, materials, economics, and culture all revolve in a complex interplay. You could certainly sort it all out (as others have already helped you along in doing in this thread). At the end, though, it will not all boil down to one "This is it."

Kevin Cantwell

Risto R

31st May 2007, 06:33

You are clearly not experienced in Japanese sword arts.
Kesagiri and kiriage are among the strongest cuts in the repertoire...if done properly.

But they won't be strong if you're cutting with the "thumb-side" of the sword leading.
I'm sorry that I didn't express myself clearly enough. This is exactly what I meant. If you make a kiriage with the back edge, it's not that strong a blow. Kesagiri and kiriage seem to be the equivalent cuts to italian tradition fendente and sottano which are some of the strongest cuts.

And there is another thing i find disturbing... this is #46 post by Paul Wagner from the swordforum link you pasted.
If I got it right, that quote he's talking about discusses just regular blows with the true/front edge.

There was a large gathering of instructors and seminars for the WMA world in a neighboring town, and a couple of friends of mine were going to conduct a seminar on test cutting, which isn't usually done much in the WMA world.

Hello Mr.Smith! It's good to have experts on test cutting to demonstrate how it's done proper. A lot of groups just dabble on by themselves. We had Emil Strenge from Sweden pulling a seminar on test cutting this year. Too bad I missed it :( Test cutting should be (and today it is) a part of any respected sword groups teaching regime.

Swordy

31st May 2007, 12:47

If I got it right, that quote he's talking about discusses just regular blows with the true/front edge.

Oh, crap, i got mixed up with the terminology! I thought backsword means cutting with the back edge! Blade alignment still is a big concern though...

Not as much time as you may think. For example, naginata (a big heavy weapon) makes generous use of changing the blade orientation. I came face-to-face with a backslash last week and it was pretty darn fast. The changing of my teacher's wrist was simply organic to the movement and left no timing opening I could exploit. (It's a trained skill.) Again, this was a big honking naginata.

Keep in the mind that the enemy is dealing with your first attack, so if you made good use of ma-ai, the miliseconds it may take change your wrist wouldn't necessarily be fatal. If changing your wrist would cost you your life, don't do it. Don't get cut and do something else.
I see your point. Still, naginatas benefit from having better leverage with the pole. Where as a Two handed sword (which is almost the size of a pole arm) only has one third of it's length for maneuvering. When your opponent has move past your advantage in ma-ai. You'll be forced to do something 'drastic' like using maybe the pole of your polearm.

Hence when i said "it must have become increasingly more usefull as the weapon became heavier." it was not a generalization... it was simply big (maybe not always heavy) weapons benefit from having a alternate weapon within in itself. In the case of the naginata, which happens to be the pole, in the case of the Two handed sword, the backedge! (of course the pommel is always there :))

As was said above, I thinking looking for one "Ah-ha!" reason for double vs. single edge isn't really a viable inquiry. Defesive resources, materials, economics, and culture all revolve in a complex interplay. You could certainly sort it all out (as others have already helped you along in doing in this thread). At the end, though, it will not all boil down to one "This is it."
Yup thanks for putting it this way. I'm quite aware that there are probably many reasons why it evolved in this manner. It wasn't my intention to generalize these things.

Swordy

1st June 2007, 00:29

At least one type of European sword could be made with either a double edge or a single edge- the broadsword/backsword. If it was made with a double edge it was called a broadsword, and if it was made with a single edge it was called a backsword.

And...

The bastard sword that I used was lighter than my usual katana, despite the blade being about five inches longer. Second, it would actually be more difficult to reverse direction with a heavier sword. When cutting kesa/gyaku kesa, the grip never changes. You shift the momentum of the sword into a tight arc to get it going the other way. In performing a back cut with a double edged sword, you actually have to stop the blade completely and get it going in the other direction. This is why I said that it wasn't any faster to back cut.

Ahh... it makes the sword lighter too? Looks like a more worthwhile alternative to digging fullers on to the blade. :)

But what effect does tapering the spine of the blade to form a back edge? (I dont mean filing the mune to an edge :p ) Does it make the broadsword wobble or vibrate minutely nearer the tip?