PDA

View Full Version : A question for Karl Friday about swordsmanship.



ben johanson
2nd January 2001, 21:38
I have a question I would like to pose to Karl Friday if he would be so kind as to answer it, but, of course, I would welcome input from anyone who wishes to give it.

I am very interested in swordsmanship, and based on what I've read, the sword was used rather sparingly on the battlefields of the Sengoku period in Japan, while the primary arms of the day (after 1543) were the spear, bow and gun. It appears that the sword assumed an entirely secondary role to the above weapons, like a back-up or a side-arm. My question is, if this is true (correct me if it's not), then why did so many samurai, such as Tsukahara Bokuden, Kamiizumi Hidetsuna, Yagyu Muneyoshi, etc and their followers, dedicate their lives to the study of the sword? If the main goal of a samurai's martial training during this period was to be able to succeed on the battlefield, then why would they spend so much of their time learning and developing techniques for a secondary battlefield weapon insead of focusing their attention on, say, the spear, since it seems to have been the principle arm in battle?

Any information on this would be greatly appreciated.

Karl Friday
9th January 2001, 16:30
That's a very good question, and I don't have a completely satisfactory answer for it--at least not yet.

You're right that the sword seems to have been a backup weapon for warriors through the medieval period, and became a key weapon and symbol of samurai identity only in the Tokugawa period, when samurai almost never saw battlefields, but DID carry swords around as part of their everyday dress. Researchers on the topic have been agreed for a couple of decades or more that the early samurai were bowmen, and the thrust of work being done on the Nanbokucho and Sengoku periods during the past few years points VERY strongly to the conclusion that missle weapons (first bows, and later guns) were the primary weapon of 14th-16th century battlefields as well, that bladed weapons came into play only in special situations or after one side had broken ranks and begun to run, and that even then samurai preferred (and feared) spears over swords.

The fascination of men like Bokuden or Muneyoshi with swordsmanship probably had to do with a combination of factors.

First and foremost is probably the overlap between sword and other military skills. The idea that fighting is basically fighting, regardless what weapon you're using seems to have been a fundamental part of samurai military thinking from very early on. Hence warriors could use sword practice as a kind of microcosm of martial art--a vehicle to generalized expertise--including expertise in generalship. In this context we need to remember that men like Bokuden were the equivalent of officers, who usually directed squads of foot soldiers from horseback. By the 15th century there seems to have been quite a bit of specialization of function in Japanese armies. The archers and gunners who appear to have been the main offensive weapons of late medieval armies were all low-ranked soldiers, as were the pikemen who protected them.

A second factor is the effect of four centuries of post-medieval memory. We tend to forget that Bokuden, Muneyoshi, Hidetsuna, Matsumoto Bizen-no-kami and other famous late 15th and 16th century warriors were all famous in their time as spearmen, as well as as swordsmen. And most medieval bugei ryuha involved the use of numerous weapons; sword-only schools were really a product of the Tokugawa period. I suspect that much of our received image of these guys as sword specialists is the result of selective memory born from early modern and modern obsession with the sword.

A third factor is the symbolic value of the sword, and its value as a personal and dueling weapon. Swords are a central part of Japanese myth and warrior ethos, appearing in the very earliest written records, and were a standard side arm of the samurai from beginning of their history. They were the weapon a warrior was most likely to be carrying, even in civilian dress. And they were both the sexiest and the most practical weapon for one-on-one duels and other off-battlefield tests of skills. Most of the great swordsmen from the sengoku era in fact made their reputations primarily through duels and matches, not wartime, battlefield exploits.

In other words, we remember Bokuden, Hidetsuna, Muneyoshi and the rest as swordsmen because they were most famous for their sword fights. But that doesn't mean that they were just swordsmen--or even that they were *primarily* swordsmen. It just means that they were especially good at or especially fond of swordplay, for a variety of reasons that are only indirectly related to what they actually did on the battlefield. The situation here reminds me a little of the final scene in "Quiggly Down Under," when Tom Selleck (whose character was famous for his expert marksmanship with a rifle) shoots down the bad guy using a handgun, and remarks "I never said I couldn't use one, I said I don't LIKE 'em."

9th January 2001, 18:11
Karl,

Excellently put.

I have had this discussion several times before with various individuals but never put it so well. Thanks for the concise and well thought out presentation of your thoughts .

Toby Threadgill

dbeaird
9th January 2001, 20:51
Wonderful response Toby, I have one comment to make from a more practical aspect though:

Spears and bows were the primary instruments of battle, however spears broke, or bowmen might be engaged in close combat where a bow was about as usefull as a flyswatter. Swords can be easily carried in a manner that leaves both hands free for use of the primary weapon and can be quickly drawn at need. I think the principle value of the sword is not as king of the battlefield, but as a highly effective secondary weapon which doesn't intefere with the use of the warriors weapon of choice, and still offers a good balance of offensive and defensive capabilities.

It was rather uncommon in all cultures to have a military unit that was armed with swords as the primary weapon, with the exception of late European cavalry, which mostly used (or at least encouraged) the sword as a sort of short lance.

Just some guy
10th January 2001, 12:56
Just going on with what dbeaird was saying I was wanting too say that this was and is not a completally Japanese practice. Though many units all over the world in the past used many differant weapons, they all had something too back up on, usually the sword. Also, this happens in the modern military as well. Though they use knife fighting instead of sword fighting. Though the guns bows spears, and whatever the main weapon of the time is, may be very well the most devestating weapon in the world, it just doesn't fit into every situation. That whole round peg for round hole thing.
Chris Baker.

10th January 2001, 23:10
I agree with both you gentlemen.

Interesting aside. several years ago a friend of mine owned a katana that was a bit too short for a normal katana but was a bit too long to be a wakazashi. The nakago was also angled in an unusual fashion. He had this sword sent to Japan for a polish. It seems the sword was an unusual katana made specifically as a secondary weapon for a spearman to draw and wield quickly if an attacked got either inside the effective range of his spear or if his spear was damaged. Kinda supports the points you guys make... no pun intended. :)

Toby Threadgill

Jerry Johnson
11th January 2001, 02:01
Hello, and pardon the interruption. If I may, I would also like to ask a question of Karl Friday. After reading such a wonderful and informative post, by Karl Friday, which now makes absolute sense that in warfare/battlefield the sword may not have been as primary of weapon as many of us thought. My question is then why all the folklore, glamorization, and romance surrounding the Japanese sword in the west? Any thoughts?

Before sounding like a complete numb skull allow me to elaborate. Clearly there is the obvious reasons. As you mentioned, symbolic value and philosophy. Sword is the soul of the samurai type of thing. What I am digging at is the why the sword and not the spear like in other cultures. What sets the Japanese apart and what is the appeal or hold does the Japanese sword (learning it) have with Western world. The middle east has great sword cultures with the same type of symbol and dueling elements. The person I think of to demonstrate this off-hand is Sir Lawrence of Arabia, and Ali Baba and the forty thieves-folklore. Whom are all great romantic figures. Figures devoid in the West of samurai culture.

If you decide to entertain this question it would be greatly appreciated, and I look forward to your response.

In gratitude,


[Edited by Jerry Johnson on 01-10-2001 at 08:04 PM]

bob elder
11th January 2001, 02:49
Is this the same Jerry Johnson that used to do the Chicago sword show and collected polearms? Just curious. Bob Elder

dbeaird
11th January 2001, 17:54
Originally posted by Jerry Johnson
Hello, and pardon the interruption. If I may, I would also like to ask a question of Karl Friday. After reading such a wonderful and informative post, by Karl Friday, which now makes absolute sense that in warfare/battlefield the sword may not have been as primary of weapon as many of us thought. My question is then why all the folklore, glamorization, and romance surrounding the Japanese sword in the west? Any thoughts?

[Edited by Jerry Johnson on 01-10-2001 at 08:04 PM]

Well, I'm not Karl Friday and I've never played him on TV, but...

Most of the recent delusions about Japanese swords comes to us from WWII. At first GI's were warned about dealing with sword carrying IJA soldiers and the stories started to grow about the swords cutting through machine gun barrels and so on. (Why any swordsman would try to cut a machine gun barrel when he could cut the machine gunner is beyond me.) Japanese swords became highly prized trophies, even though most of the swords in service were machine stamped guntos, and of course, casualties from sword wounds were next to non-existant.

The other point to remember is that the Japanese feudal culture was only dissolved fairly recently, and the artificial ban on firearms prior to the Meiji Restoration helped preserve the culture of the Bushi and the Japanese sword (as it was intended to do). Following that, the Japanese government relied heavily on the legends and lore of the Samurai in their propoganda. This has lead to a sort of high availability of lore compared to most Western Cultures. And of course we shouldn't forget the fact that Westerners are often drawn to the Mysterious Orient, just because it is different.

Swords in all cultures have been highly regarded and valuable weapons. It takes great skill to make one, and great skill to use one effectively. Pattern welding, laminate construction and just about all facets of Japanese sword construction can be found in Western and Middle Eastern swords. Western swords were made that in every respect compare favorably to the best that the Japanese could make. The early advent of firearms though brought an end to the nobility dominating the battlefields of Europe and methods of mass production began to be used to arm the citizenry rather than craftsmen supplying a small warrior class.

To sum up: Westerners see the Japanese sword as first a sword which is a highly respected weapon and a symbol of nobility in practically all cultures. Second, they see a tradition of craftsmanship that is unmatched in the West. Third, the Japanese sword is part of an alien culture, and so perceived to be superior by those who cannot be bothered to see their own culture. And finally, there is an available body of literature and folklore surrounding these weapons that enhance all these aspects in building a legendary reputation for the weapon, the swordmakers and the men who wielded it in battle.

On top of all that, Japanese swords are without a doubt the prettiest ever made. This is what happens when a battlefield tool becomes a piece of jewelry.

Daniel Pokorny
11th January 2001, 18:31
Just another thought here. If it were me on those battle fields and I was looking at my sword as a backup weapon, actually using it would then mean I was very close to running out of options.

I don't know, but I think this fact alone would push me into becoming as proficient with the sword as I could possibly be..... or else get really good at throwing rocks!


Regards to all,

Dan P. - Mongo

Just some guy
11th January 2001, 18:58
Forgive me if I'm stepping on Dr. Friday's toes ( the last thing in the world that I would want to do) but I would like to say another point about the "glorifacation of the Japanese sword" as it were. I just wanted to say that this is hardly limited to the Japanese! Western culture has plenty of myths and legends about the sword as well, both Modern as well as archaic. Need I bring up King Authur or Zorro? How about the three Muskateers or the Scaramuce to say nothing of Beowolf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Star Wars, Robin Hood, the Princess Bride, Black Beard, ( need I go on?). Simply put, there is just somthing about this weapon that touches up and fasinates us. Just look at the fact that we are around our computers talking about a weapon that has effectively lost its military use and is considered more a thing of beauty than a thing of war. Yet, here we all are, many of us devoting our lifes to the study of a weapon that is in many ways obsolete. Heck, I would bet that the SWord forum on E-budo is the one that gets more posts than most others if not the most. I know I check this one before checking anything else.
Chris Baker.

Karl Friday
11th January 2001, 20:47
I think Chris, Daniel and Dan have summed this up pretty nicely. The cult of the Japanese sword in the West is partly an extension of the cult of the Western sword in the West, and partly an extension of the cult of the Japanese sword in Japan (which was in turn the product of ancient myths reinforced by Tokugawa period myths, further reinforced and expanded by a mythos fostered by the Imperial Army). And let's not forget Mifune Toshiro movies . . .

ghp
11th January 2001, 21:27
Dan,


...and so perceived to be superior by those who cannot be bothered to see their own culture....

How true, how true! Only now, after my 48th year, am I becoming interested in European knights/miltes and their arms/armor.

Regards,
Guy

Deshi
11th January 2001, 22:59
Guy,

It looks like we have approached things backwards... I have been an avid student on Anglican arms/armor for many years, and am only just now starting to learn the Japanese variants. In fact, over this weekend, I'm hoping to have my MA instructor do a goza cut with his katana and my basket-hilt broadsword to compare damage differences. (Of course, I suspect the broadsword won't fare well.... but why not?!?! :-) )

Good luck in your pursuits. There is as much garbage and speculation in the Euro side of things as there is in Japanese. Keep clear of the SCA and you should do alright.

Gary Beckstedt
"He who dies with the most toys... is still dead."

Just some guy
11th January 2001, 23:11
Now something that is really interesting about that point of people not being interested in their own Culture comes into viewwhen you live in Europe. I have a friend I train in swords with here (Mainz, Germany) and has a great interest in Europian Swordsmanship. His Problem, all the schools that teach that are in America or a small city in Spain. You got to love the Irony there huh. :saw: Talk about a head job.

Leo Chang
12th January 2001, 08:13
Originally posted by Chris Baker
Simply put, there is just somthing about this weapon that touches up and fasinates us. Just look at the fact that we are around our computers talking about a weapon that has effectively lost its military use and is considered more a thing of beauty than a thing of war. Yet, here we all are, many of us devoting our lifes to the study of a weapon that is in many ways obsolete.




Personally, I have wondered often about this fascination with the sword too. Why not the spear? Or the jo? Or the manrikigusari? Or the European lances and the big-spiky-steel-ball-at-end-of-long-chain flails? While I can offer no plausible answers of my own, according to my old English teacher:

"Men are obsessed with swords because swords are LONG, made of HARD steel, and requires some MUSCLES to use. The ideal phallic symbol"


:D

Anyone want to offer their non-Freudian explanations? :)

[Edited by Leo Chang on 01-12-2001 at 02:16 AM]

Just some guy
12th January 2001, 11:22
Loe Chang,

I know exactly how you feel about the phallic symbol philosophy. Having a B.A. in English and being an English teacher here in Germany I hear enough Freudian psycology to make me want to barf. I do think that the Phallic symbol idea can be thrown away right off the bat because this really only gives more reason that the Spear or lance should be the subject of fasination instead of the sword given that they are both LONGER, HARDER, and requier even more MUSCLE to use. Phallic imagry would take away the apeal for the sword instead of giving it. Not only that but, given that a knight was far more likely to be using a spear or lance to the sword, which even in pre-renisance Europe was still a secondary weapon as in Japan, it is also more likely that a spear or some other weapon like that would be hailed as supreme. I won't get started with the Mace, a Long, Hard Woody with a BAll at the end.

Phallic Symbolisum is usually a cop out today which I personally think could be better worded as saying "Well, Darn! I don't know". Having delt with a great number of English teachers, as well as being one myself, I can tell you that this is the last thing that any english teach will say and it doesn't matter what you are talking about.

Anyway, As for my Personal take on the Fasination of the sword, and here should be when every English teacher or Prof in the world coulnts me as a naive idiot, I simply think that the sword is such a demanding weapon that truly requiers a great amount of skill, though not really all that much muscle as I've seen from my expiriance. We must remember that, though it is not the main reason that the Spear was made the primary weapon of must foot solders around the world, one of the very infuencial reasons was because that the spear simply does not need that much skill to use in battle. Most of the spear training that a solder got was how to stand in line and then how to walk in line. Then you were about done. It isn't that hard. Thought there are many techniques, the masses were not taught them. A perfect example would be Oda Nobunaga's campains to unite Japan. His secret weapon was spears that measured over 12 feet long. Doing most of the spear techniques I know would be almost impossible with a weapon that size. The Same is true of the Firearm for that matter. Though they were popular, they didn't need that much skill. Though the Bow needs skill, you are also usualy a a great distance from the attacker and this doesn't demand as much of you mentally ( I say this from Personal expiriance by being an Archer as well as a Kenshi).

However, the Sword is a very demanding weapon that requires a great deal of skill to uses. First off a sword though it is a wonderful machine is still scienitficly speaking a Machine, no differant than your computer or your car. This means that, just as they do, a Sword needs to be givien a spesific kind of power to cut an object. If your angle is wrong or you have not achived the right amount of inertia, which is the force than actually causes an object to be cut, then the sword will just slam up against the object and not do its job correctlly. There is a great deal of physical skill involved in learning how to cut effectively. Then you need to be able to move into position to cut effectively with out getting kiled yourself. This is also not very easy. Then All of this gets magnified by ten thoughend when you take into account that Sword duels and generaly very close quarters fights when you and the attacker are so close that you can look into each others eye and smell each other's breath the entire time. A sword duel it truly an intence act and requiers the uptmost skill and ability to survive. Then one must take into account that if you are using a sword on the battlefeild then you are also fighting Spears, Axes, Halberds, Maces, all of which are weapons that requier less skill than yours and must of which have a much greater reach as well. If you go into battle with a sword and live to talk about it, you were definatly a skilled fighter.

Just one last note on this one before I go. You do get this in Modern warfare as well. There are reports of people who were in the Army but claim that they were actualy Navy SEALs or some other high profile S.F. force. This is for the same reason. Though being in the Army infantry does demand a lot of some one, it is generaly thought that being a Navy SEAL demands more and therefore people want to say that they belonged to the more prestigious, and therefore better, group.

Well, I think that I managed to clog E-budo with enough bites of info. I hope I don't crash the System with this one. I also hope that this gives some people the answer they were looking for.

Dan Harden
12th January 2001, 13:18
Facinating subject, and one that can get you into a hot water with people who want to beilieve in the "myth" of the sword. In august I wrote the following here on E-Budo

***********************************

I always find this fascinating. If you read the writings of the occidentals who have studied the combative history of Japan, a common thread shines through. The Warriors of Japan rarely if ever used their swords in combat. In fact they were almost never used. It seems studies of actual combat sites showed the skeletal scars of arrows, and hand thrown rocks in far greater abundance than any other weapons. Yet here we sit in the twenty first century prattling on about the nuance of sword.


and this was one of the reply's I got (from a Menkyo in a Koryu art no less)


*********************************

Are you smokin' Dannyboy

Dan posted:

The Warriors of Japan rarely if ever used their swords in combat. In fact they were almost never used.

____________________________________________________________

Pardon me Dan, but thats the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. Let me see, that explains why swords were produced in a ratio of 30/1 to 50/1 over other bladed weapons (excepting tanto) during the Warring States Era.
Oh , I see, they never used them. That explains all the fascination and obsession with swordsmanship. Maybe the Japanese swordmakers were actually pasfists and purposely making weapons that were " almost never used " to discourage warfare Hummmm. I wonder how the Japanese were able to amass the knowledge required to create the finest edged weapon in the world 700 years ago if they never actually used them? And the mention of the Japanese swords devestating effectiveness by the mongols... must have been because they looked so scary I guess. ( Shudder, Shudder )
____________________________________________________________

Dan Posted:

"It seems studies of actual combat sites showed the skeletal scars of arrows, and hand thrown rocks in far greater abundance than any other weapons."

____________________________________________________________

ROCK FU TOO! Gotta love it

Even if this were true it would conclusively prove nothing to support your contention that " swords were almost never used in combat " Find me a pathologist that claims to be able to consistently recognize a 700 year old bone wound from a steel sword and a 700 year old bone wound from an steel arrowhead and I'll present a pathologist that says your guy’s full of B.S.
And then, even if swords were "almost never used in combat" how does that dispute the fact that aiki principles were originally principles of swordsmanship.

Dan this is just silliness. Are you being contrary for the heck of it?


**************************

There is no changing what men WANT to believe is true. Is there?
Add to all of this that there is no credible way to prove that any of the surviving schools have techniques and or technicians (too very disparate subjects) that can manifest martial prowess. We hear stories of early twentieth century duels but that doesn’t prove anything either. The opponent might have been a so so practitioner of a lousy Ryu. A terrible practitioner of a great Ryu. Or a great practitioner of a great Ryu on a bad day. Who knows?
We all seem to have found a style we like.
Some are old ryu so infused with kendo that there is no way to tell where one left off and the other started. There is one old school that was revamped by the techniques and principles of another old school.
What’s the original? What’s the new (old) stuff added?
Are some better than others? Yes, we all seem to agree that is true.
Which ones?
Can you prove it?
No way, no how
Or, is it more a case of an individual making good use of effective principle to garner effective technique?
Outside of battlefield troop tactics, this, I suspect has always been the case. There is more to be seen in an individuals interpretation of an art, than in any given art as whole

So, are there martially viable techniques? Well, as you have read, based on what? They never used the damn things in any martial context. So, Is Koryu’s supposed martial validity all smoke and mirrors?
Was the modern research all smoke and mirrors with the researcher trying to make a name for himself by validating a hypothesis?

I believe there are schools that are more martialy viable than others. I have personal expamples of kenjutsu and Iai encounters that were startling to the Iai people involved. Would it hold true as a case by case study to validate the technqiues of an entire Ryu? I doubt it. As I stated above, how much is up to the individual?

Fascinating stuff

Dan


[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-12-2001 at 07:25 AM]

Just some guy
12th January 2001, 16:16
Mr Harden,
I have to admit that your last post was very interesting. I do agree with you in most respects though not all. I couldn't agree more that the sword was not as widely used as any other weapon in the Japanese battles (Namely the Bow, Spear and lets not forget the Gun). The sword really is, for lack of a better way of putting it, not the best weapon for the battlefeild in conventional Japanese warfare. Which is why it was the secondary weapon.I do have to admit that you frind there, insert ironic snikker here, did go off on a bit of a tantrum there and as a Koryu student myself I do have to say I'm a bit embarased to hear a responce like that. Shoudl one disagree that is expected however, it just simply could have been worded in a more mature manner.

However I do have to point out two things that your post does over look. Firstly I would like to point out that your post itself says that SOME studies have shown that the bow and rocks caused more injuries that any other weapon. Though this is interesting, to say that this is proof that the Samurai Hardly ever used their sword is overstating this event to say the least. On this note, it should also be pointed out that Suprise attack and night raids were every bit the Japanese tacktic as they are in the west. Using a bow in such cases, such as the Minamoto mountain raid on the Tira clan for example, would make the bow and the gun counter productive weapons as they both would give the enemy the chance to responce with like power and, given that the Minamoto were attacking the Tira on their grounds, this would have made the entire attack some what, well, stupid. This is not to say that they must have used the sword but, the weapon being used would need to be somthing with a closer range.

Secondly, though it could have been pointed out in a more polite manner, your frind does have a point about the producton of the sword. The sword prodution in Japan was exceptionally high. There have also been numerous sword found with battle chips on them and even blood stains. Also, when considering that the rate of production was so high, one must also consider that only the Samurai were able to carry a sword, unlike the Spear or wakazashi or tanto. Given that sword sword produton exceeded most other bladed weapons and was also a fairly close second to the tanto, this does lend credit to the sword being unsed and also destroyed as the were a far lower number of Samurai than of other classes yet their weapon still was produced more often.

Thirdly, I would like to point out that though some of these studies have found that many remains were injured or killed by rocks, to suggest that these weapons were used more often than the sword is a little strange to say the least. Combatively speaking, a sword has much better reach and can do more damage than a hand held rock. Now were the rock thrown, then it seems that it would be more of an annooyance than a fatal weapon as it was bouncing of the Samurai armour, which was designed to deflect long range weapons in the first place. Also I would like t point out that these findings are on the REMAINS of the dead. You must remember that the Samurai needed to remove the heads of his victems to advance in the army. Then the heads would be displayed and though I don't have any proof as yet, my reading thus far leads me to believe that the bodies were used for Tamashigiri tests that Japanese smiths used to test newly made swords ( which frequently use corpses for this work and all of the illistrations from the prosedures that I have seen all have the head already removed. Also, let's not forget the remains that were taken and given a funeral or hung as examples ect. This would make it pretty impossible to state exactly how many people in this fight were killed with what. Infact those that were killed with arrows and rocks might have been left simply because noone was sure exactly who killed the man and there for couldn't take credit, to say nothing of killing someone with a rock instead of a sword not being all that honorable and the person doing it didn't want to admit it.

I do agree that the extrem of thinking that the Samurai used the sword in everday of his life is simply not historicly acurate. However, taking the opposit eextrem and say that these were weapons that the Japanese hardly ever used and perfered fighting with stones to would be every bit as blind.

I do hope you don't find me being to combative here. I just wanted to point out a few holes that I found in your argument.

dbeaird
12th January 2001, 17:46
Originally posted by Deshi
Guy,

In fact, over this weekend, I'm hoping to have my MA instructor do a goza cut with his katana and my basket-hilt broadsword to compare damage differences. (Of course, I suspect the broadsword won't fare well.... but why not?!?! :-) )

Good luck in your pursuits. There is as much garbage and speculation in the Euro side of things as there is in Japanese. Keep clear of the SCA and you should do alright.

Gary Beckstedt
"He who dies with the most toys... is still dead."

If you want to know why not, it's a matter of blade geometry and the design of the swords. Your basket hilt sword was designed essentially for hacking, hard straight cuts with no perpendicular motion to assist the cut. These weapons were used with shields, and the sword had to take abuses that the katana was not meant to withstand. The katana on the other hand is designed to slice. Although both swords should cut, each is designed with different tactics in mind, so the cut shouldn't be about determining which sword is "better".

And there's really nothing wrong with the SCA, I used to be a member way back when it was just people getting drunk and hitting each other with sticks. I admit it's gone too wierd for my personal tastes and if you remember that SCA combat is to historical combat what Taco Bell is to fine French cuisine, you'll be all right. Say what you like about them, they have the best food and usually all the mead and homebrew you can drink...forget the stick fighting and just go to eat.

Jerry Johnson
12th January 2001, 18:22
Wow, what a subject, I didn't know this would cut an major vein. I guess after reading, I hear what some are saying. The sword is important because of what we project on to it. The japanese sword because of it's advantages.But, not because of its utility, its history, or how it was originally looked as.

I agree with many, it seems the role and the importance of the Japanese sword is over blown. That many may be worshiping or a great zeal for the Japanese sword, no insult intended. Don't think that I am against this, I do see a lot of "+" s because of it. But I am glad the whole idea is being discussed the pros and cons.

glad2bhere
12th January 2001, 18:51
By co-incidence I had a discussion with GM Koo, my sword teacher and there is something that he related that touches on some of what you folks have batted back and forth.

Our school and organization progress forward from the formation of the Korea Kundo Association in the later
1890-s. A goodly portion of our tradition has its roots in Kendo as taught to the Korean population by the Japanese. It is not uncommon for this fact to put-off a number of potential students who are looking for gen-u-wine Korean swordsmanship. Nor did it keep a number of individuals from spinning off from the KKA to start such things as Hai Dong Kumdo, often touted as the REAL Korean swordsmanship. Still Korean students come from great distances to study under GM Koo, while it is the Anglo students who seem most put-off by our mixed heritage. Perhaps, then, it is neither the actual history, or usage of the weapon but the romance surrounding it that has most to do with whether the art survives or not. I corroborate this by pointing out that in my experience most students come to me for the opportunity to do MA-like things as opposed to being seriously interested in studying a MA.

Best Wishes,
Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

Karl Friday
12th January 2001, 19:24
I think maybe it's worth adding a bit of factual correction to Chris Baker's post:




However I do have to point out two things that [Dan Harden's] post does over look. Firstly I would like to point out that your post itself says that SOME studies have shown that the bow and rocks caused more injuries that any other weapon. Though this is interesting, to say that this is proof that the Samurai Hardly ever used their sword is overstating this event to say the least.

This is true enough, on the surface of things, but it ignores the fact that we're not talking about just "some studies" but ALL of the studies of the topic that have been done during the past several years. There are a handful of scholars (including me) who have recently been attempting to take a careful look at battlefield practices during various periods in Japanese history, using careful analyses of various kinds of documents, including battle reports and casualty lists. All of these scholars have argued for the conclusion that swords were a secondary, not a primary weapon during the period under study--which collectively accounts for the whole of pre-Tokugawa samurai history. Granted, Dan's "hardly ever used" statement is an exaggeration that goes beyond what historians are actually arguing, but it's certainly not so off-the-wall as to deserve the kind of response he got ("what have you been smoking?"?!).



On this note, it should also be pointed out that Suprise attack and night raids were every bit the Japanese tacktic as they are in the west. Using a bow in such cases, such as the Minamoto mountain raid on the Tira clan for example, would make the bow and the gun counter productive weapons as they both would give the enemy the chance to responce with like power and, given that the Minamoto were attacking the Tira on their grounds, this would have made the entire attack some what, well, stupid. This is not to say that they must have used the sword but, the weapon being used would need to be somthing with a closer range.

Ok, first of all, the family name Chris is referring to is "Taira," not "Tira"; and second, the war he refers to, the Gempei War, was fought in 1180-85, almost four centuries before the introduction of the gun. More importantly, if you actually read the sources for the battle (even the ones that have been translated into English, such as the *Heike monogatari* or the *Azuma kagami*), it's abundantly clear that bows were the main weapon in the "raid" (which was in fact a full-scale seige, involving 3000 Minamoto attacking 20,000 Taira troops [according to the *Gokuyo*] or 60,000 Minamoto vs. 7000 Taira [according to the *Heike monogatari*]) on the Taira fortress at Ichinotani. Swords came into play only after the warriors ran out of arrows or lost or broke their bows.

Chris is correct that raiding and ambush were common tactics in early samurai warfare, but his assumption that the raiders used swords rather than bows is in error. The principal tactic in such raids was in fact ringing the house under attack, with archers, setting fire to it, and shooting anyone who tried to crawl out.



The sword prodution in Japan was exceptionally high. There have also been numerous sword found with battle chips on them and even blood stains. Also, when considering that the rate of production was so high, one must also consider that only the Samurai were able to carry a sword, unlike the Spear or wakazashi or tanto. Given that sword sword produton exceeded most other bladed weapons and was also a fairly close second to the tanto, this does lend credit to the sword being unsed and also destroyed as the were a far lower number of Samurai than of other classes yet their weapon still was produced more often.

Swords were NOT the exclusive preserve of the samurai until the Tokugawa period. During the years in which samurai were actually fighting battles, soldiers of all ranks and levels carried them as back-up weapons. Moreover, the Japanese also produced large numbers of swords for export--to China and Korea. Frankly, I have questions about the "30/1" and "50/1" statistics that one of Dan's critics cited for sword production vs. the production of other bladed weapons--I'm having a hard time imagining what kind of sources could be used to give reliable figures on this kind of question. But even if you accept the ratios and numbers given, the facts that most warriors carried swords as battlefield sidearms, and that both warriors and non-warriors carried them as symbolic and self-defense weapons off the battlefield are more that enough to explain the high numbers of swords produced, even without factoring in the export market.



Thirdly, I would like to point out that though some of these studies have found that many remains were injured or killed by rocks, to suggest that these weapons were used more often than the sword is a little strange to say the least. Combatively speaking, a sword has much better reach and can do more damage than a hand held rock. Now were the rock thrown, then it seems that it would be more of an annooyance than a fatal weapon as it was bouncing of the Samurai armour, which was designed to deflect long range weapons in the first place. Also I would like t point out that these findings are on the REMAINS of the dead. You must remember that the Samurai needed to remove the heads of his victems to advance in the army. Then the heads would be displayed and though I don't have any proof as yet, my reading thus far leads me to believe that the bodies were used for Tamashigiri tests that Japanese smiths used to test newly made swords ( which frequently use corpses for this work and all of the illistrations from the prosedures that I have seen all have the head already removed. Also, let's not forget the remains that were taken and given a funeral or hung as examples ect. This would make it pretty impossible to state exactly how many people in this fight were killed with what. Infact those that were killed with arrows and rocks might have been left simply because noone was sure exactly who killed the man and there for couldn't take credit, to say nothing of killing someone with a rock instead of a sword not being all that honorable and the person doing it didn't want to admit it.

First, the reference to rock wounds was for wounds caused by rocks THROWN, by hand or by sling, NOT to rocks held in the hand and used as crude clubs. Rocks are, in point of fact, a VERY practical weapon, particularly when you keep in mind that, contrary to the image we see in movies, large numbers of the participants in medieval battles were not equipped with full suits of armor--many wore none at all.

Second, the evidence for the preponderance of rock and arrow (and later gun) wounds over sword (and other bladed weapon) wounds comes from DOCUMENTARY sources--especially casualty reports--NOT the examination of corpses. The only attempt that's ever been made to analyze human remains to determine battlefield casualties is Myra Shackley's examination of skeletons dating from the 14th century, found in a mass grave at Zaimokuza, near Kamakura. And there are a lot of problems with this analysis, not the least of which is that no one has any real knowledge of who the bodies in the grave were or how they got there.

Third, the bodies of fallen soldiers were NOT used for tameshigiri--at least not as a matter of regular practice. During the Tokugawa period, the corpses of executed criminals were sometimes used in this manner by swordsmiths, but this is an entirely different thing from chopping at the bodies of battlefield casualties.

Just some guy
12th January 2001, 19:34
I stand . . . Catsrated. Well I guess I need to read up a bit more before I open my big mouth. Hope I didn't sound to disrespectful. I think I'll go hide in a hole for a while now.

Just some guy
12th January 2001, 19:36
Just so everyone knows, the "What are you smoking" crack was not mine.

pgsmith
12th January 2001, 19:48
Hi All,
Very interesting thread with lots of good ideas all around. There is one that I haven't seen and so have to put forth to answer the earlier question of why the sword was so revered. I agree that the sword was primarily a back-up weapon. Everything I have read on the subject seems to point to this fact. It seems to me though that the reverence for the sword doesn't come out fully until during the reign of the Tokugawa. Coincidentally, this is also after all but the samurai were forbidden to carry swords. The samurai were a high class, the epitome of the Japanese male so to speak. He was also the one swaggering around with the daisho thrust through his belt. The sword thus came to symbolise the samurai, and the samurai to symbolise the epitome of the Japanese male. It is no wonder to me that the sword came to be so revered in Japanese culture, nor in western culture for that matter. People as a whole tend to be more reverent of Japanese swords than their European counterparts for this very reason. Of course, all of this is just my opinion on the matter. :)

Cheers,

glad2bhere
12th January 2001, 20:54
Would anyone be willing to give credence to the possibility that the sword is endowed with the same romantic energy that perhaps we in the US give to Civil War firearms, handguns from the Western Expansion part of our history, or the high-power weapons associated with the urban warfare of modern media? I have read a couple of Mr. Fridays' contributions and give them credence as coming from the author of what I have found to be two well-written books on the issue of Budo-development. If I am drawing the correct conbclusions overall, it seems that the fires of Budo passion in Japanese history have traditionally been more smoke than flame and the heat often comes from the oddest directions. Am I misreading your take on this , Mr Friday?

Best Wishes,
Bruce W Sims
http://www.miswesthapkido.com

Jerry Johnson
12th January 2001, 22:02
I'd venture to say the root of romance is power. I am sure as others are thinking that our love for guns i.e. power and emotion guns provide is the same for the sword. The sword being more primative could be the appeal for some over guns. The sword too is very more symbolic for what it means and what can be expressed. This whole thing is a transmission of emotion to an instrument or object to express power or emotions as a form of communication. The feeling of power.

Any one remember the commericals for the Marines and the Army a few years ago? The sword was a distinct symbol and instrument of power.

Which leads me to the idea it is about what a sword provides it's holder, a combination or relationship rather then the instrument itself.

ben johanson
12th January 2001, 22:42
WOW!

I was away for a week and I come back to find 2 pages full of replies to my question. In fact, I guess I should mention, Dr Friday, that I was in Athens, Georgia this past week and that I am the one you just talked to on Wednesday night after Kashima Shinryu practice about the problems with the Japaneses language program at UGA. I forgot to tell you then that I'm a member on e-budo.

Anyway...thanks to everyone for your input and for starting this great discussion. I have another question to add to it:

It seems to have been firmly established here that the sword assumed a secondary role on the battlefield, like that of a side-arm. If that was the case, then it would have been used by a samurai only after his primary weapon (probably a spear) had been lost or cut through in the thick of hand-to-hand fighting, right? Then wouldn't that often times necessitate the use of a quick, single drawing-cutting motion (battojutsu or iai)?

I have read many posts on this forum condeming iai as a "non-battlefield art" and have even read something in Koryu Bujutsu by Diane Skoss that said that the ability to draw the sword and cut in one super fast motion would not have been a necessary skill in battle, as weapons would have already been drawn at the start of an engagement. But, in the case of the sword as a back-up weapon, it seems to me that battojutsu would have been a very usefull, perhaps even crucial, skill to possess on the battlefield. What does everybody think?

Karl Friday
12th January 2001, 23:19
I don't think that the ability to draw a sword quickly would have been any more crucial to samurai on the battlefield than the ability to draw a handgun or knife quickly is to modern infantrymen. Most of the time a samurai forced to have recourse to his sword because he lost his spear or whatever would either have had plenty of time to just draw the weapon normally, or, conversely, not enough time to employ even the quickest batto techniques. Then too, quick-draw-and-slash techniques would not have been particularly effective against armored opponents anyway.

The rarity (as far as I know, the complete absence) of quick-draw sword training in the military traditions of armies elsewhere around the globe would tend to bear out this line of reasoning. Similarly, the parallels between the American fascination with quick-drawing handguns and the Japanese development of batto techniques are suggestive: Both developed around weapons carried as part of everyday dress, both developed apart from the battlefield/military martial tradition, and both seem to have seen far more combative application in popular imagination than in real fights.

dbeaird
13th January 2001, 02:38
Originally posted by ben johanson
WOW!

I have read many posts on this forum condeming iai as a "non-battlefield art" and have even read something in Koryu Bujutsu by Diane Skoss that said that the ability to draw the sword and cut in one super fast motion would not have been a necessary skill in battle, as weapons would have already been drawn at the start of an engagement. But, in the case of the sword as a back-up weapon, it seems to me that battojutsu would have been a very usefull, perhaps even crucial, skill to possess on the battlefield. What does everybody think?

Perhaps it might be useful, but not necessary. Just like you don't have to be a quick draw artist to unholster a pistol, you don't have to be an Iai expert in order to take a sword out of the saya. Considering the construction of the sword and the saya, I would think it likely that everyone who used and carried these swords practiced drawing them in some fashion. We've all read the horror stories of the split scabbards and missing thumbs. I would think that would be intensely more embarrassing in front of a bunch of fellow Samurai than it would be for anyone today. Proficiency in Iai is just one of the things that separated the exceptional swordsman from the more common sort.

The whole concept of battlefield/non-battlefield art is misleading in any case. It's a battlefield art if you happen to be in a battle when you do it. Other than that, it isn't. I believe we can all agree that people who studied Iai did participate in combat. I think a more appropriate question would be along the lines of: Does Iai provide training in valuable skills that are appropriate for the ruling warrior class? Since a great number of these busy men paid enough attention to it to keep it alive should be sufficient evidence that it is a worthwhile pursuit for a warrior.

I heard something a few weeks ago in class, just sort of a line that dropped into the conversation while we were discussing one of the earlier threads that went this route. The statement was to the effect that the people the other Samurai were afraid of, the real bad asses, were Iai guys. A couple provinces and I think schools were named, but I don't really remember details. Maybe Dr. Friday or one of the people who participated in that conversation could share a little more about that.

Just some guy
13th January 2001, 14:22
My own thoughts on Iai, hopefully I can avoid sounding like an idiot this time, is that I do think that this was used long before the first Iai technique was ever invented. I've noticed from some of my friends who were in the military being pretty skilled in Quick Draw techniques for example. Though Dr Friday is correct that he never recived any really training in Quick Draw in the military. I think it's just practical to know how to get the sword out of the Saya as fast as possible when you have someone charging you with a 3 foot razor blade wanting to mount your favorite head on his wall. I just believe that no one bothered putting any set techniques on paper because it just seemed like common knowlage. This seems to be the trend I've noticed.

On a side note to this, I was wondering if anyone could recomend any books on the history of japan, and the Sengoku Era, or anything else along these lines in German. Most of the books I've heard referance to are english books that have proven hard to find in American Bookstores. I think that Finding them in Germany would be near impossible. I don't speak enough Japanese just yet to worry about the Japanese ones.

Dan Harden
13th January 2001, 14:33
It is too early, and I don’t feel like writing an essay on the sword. If you go to the "stainless steel" thread on the sword forums
http://204.95.207.136/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2114&pagenumber=1
you will find exhaustive commentary (by me) on swords, steel, manufacture and design and steel use for specific purposes in cutting. Of course it is just my opinion. But, read it for yourself.

The comments here about the broadsword VS the Katana are not so simple as blade geometry. There is blade design, blade geometry, steel type, and the all important, (but never written about here in E-budo since its inception till I broached the topic) THE HEAT TREATMENT and carbon content of the blades in question.

Geometry aside,
If both weapons were of traditional manufacture
Your broadswords edge was designed to be blunt NOT sharp. It smashes it does not hack. It is spring tempered just like the body of the blade. It will not take, and hold, an edge for long. Its strength is in stabbing or smashing. it will not bend as easy as a Katana.

Your Katana was designed for cutting Not slashing. Its steel and edge(the decent ones anyway) will cut objects well. But it will not stand much lateral abuse. In fact the very thing they tried to accomplish in the "Kobuse" folding method actually contributed to its potential lateral weakness. If you try to hack at hard objects with a katana I wouldn’t place any bets on how long it lasts till it breaks or bends and "sets."


As for the Iai battlefield comments

lets settle for a discusion where we may have opinions that may openly disagree and leave it at that.

The idea of being able to use the sword should be of paramount importance in any sort of training. How fast you can draw it, and (to carry the absurd to the sublime), how fast you can re-sheath it, is so secondary in nature as to be of little consequence compared to the need for combatively sound principles in its use.
In other words, learning to draw it fast is one thing. Being able to account for yourself with its use against someone intent on seeing you undone, and having both the means and the wherewithal to see it through, is an entirely different topic.
Most of the derogatory comments written here and elsewhere, toward Iai, is not about the “Idea” of Iai. No one is questioning the validity of being able to draw the thing. It is first clarifying the highly improbable history of its practical use, and the subsequent “need” to spend SO MUCH TIME mastering a simple draw from a seated position or otherwise. Secondly it is the result of what most of us have seen in the combative mechanics and rationale of Iai, seated or standing, even by highly ranked exponents.
Perhaps a twenty year study of stand up kenjutsu, including shiai and tameshigiri, should be accompanied by a just a few years training in Iai. Rather than spending a ridiculous amount of time on your knees (it takes this long to strengthen your hips don't you know :rolleyes: )ruining both them and your elbows before ever getting to two man kata. IF! you ever get to two man Kata. And/or spending such and out of balance time in a syllibus geared toward kneeling, and drawing, or standing and drawing and deflecting and cutting with one hand...etc etc. When the time could be better spent on the more historically accurate pursuit of standing "sword already drawn" and facing a similar opponent, and then learning how defeat the ready opponent.
Again, not that the "Idea" of Iai is wrong, it is the lack of combatively sound body mechanics or principles. Principles that would hold you in good stead and enable you to press and control Maai and effect body positioning to generate power in small spaces and increase mobility. And more importantly, to be able to do this against an opponent intent on your demise who knows how to use a sword.

Making analogies to the quick draw artist may be sound

Kenjutsu Sword combatives go hand in hand with Gun combatives. Drawing and moving off line while maintaining target aquisiton, as well as vectoring. Also, the effective management of your targets and controling their response is an exacting study. One best done on your feet, through exhaustive Kata, and then free style.


Dan

[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-13-2001 at 10:17 AM]

Just some guy
13th January 2001, 18:44
Couldn't AGREE more.

Cady Goldfield
13th January 2001, 20:39
deleted :)

[Edited by Cady Goldfield on 01-13-2001 at 03:51 PM]

socho
13th January 2001, 23:01
Originally posted by Dan Harden


As for the Iai battlefield comments
...lets settle for a discusion where we may have opinions that may openly disagree and leave it at that.

Sounds good to me.

The idea of being able to use the sword should be of paramount importance in any sort of training. How fast you can draw it, and (to carry the absurd to the sublime), how fast you can re-sheath it, is so secondary in nature as to be of little consequence compared to the need for combatively sound principles in its use.[/QUOTE]

The point isn't (or shouldn't be) drawing fast, and certainly not a fast noto, either of those could cost you fingers, blood, or a saya. The point is doing it correctly, smoothly, to segue into an attack or defense. For most iai, the draw and noto are mostly just the beginning and end of a form. The emphasis should be on the application of the same principles you are talking about. Can you get there or will someone see that (oh impatient Americans) in a year or two? Probably not. The Omori set or the shoden set is just the beginning. I agree with you about seiza, but unfortunately most of us do not have a great deal of choice in the styles available to us. For those of us advanced in years :) , I would recommend Nakamura-ryu or Toyama-ryu. No kneeling forms, good two-man forms, plus tameshigiri. Not a lot of either around in the states (Guy Power, Bob Elder). I agree that iai by itself is not enough, a bit of kendo, and aikido, maybe some ju-jitsu will round it out nicely. I hope that whatever style we are doing it is to improve ourselves, strengthen our body and spirit, not to 'kick ass', at least not over here in the sword forum. I won't say anything bad about kenjutsu (notice the respectful restraint? :) ) but are combative mechanics with a wooden sword substantively different, better, or more realistic, than with an iaito? Historically accurate pursuit? Please. OK, you are not a fan of iai, got it. Enjoy what you do.

dbeaird
14th January 2001, 03:53
Originally posted by Dan Harden

The comments here about the broadsword VS the Katana are not so simple as blade geometry. There is blade design, blade geometry, steel type, and the all important, (but never written about here in E-budo since its inception till I broached the topic) THE HEAT TREATMENT and carbon content of the blades in question.

Geometry aside,
If both weapons were of traditional manufacture
Your broadswords edge was designed to be blunt NOT sharp. It smashes it does not hack. It is spring tempered just like the body of the blade. It will not take, and hold, an edge for long. Its strength is in stabbing or smashing. it will not bend as easy as a Katana.

Your Katana was designed for cutting Not slashing. Its steel and edge(the decent ones anyway) will cut objects well. But it will not stand much lateral abuse. In fact the very thing they tried to accomplish in the "Kobuse" folding method actually contributed to its potential lateral weakness. If you try to hack at hard objects with a katana I wouldn’t place any bets on how long it lasts till it breaks or bends and "sets."...

Dan

[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-13-2001 at 10:17 AM]

I'm going to suspect you've never handled a Highland Basket Hilt before. They are indeed sharp, certainly they aren't polished to a razor edge like a Japanese sword, but they are sharp enough to cut. One thing to keep in mind about some Western swords and especially more recent Western military swords (Which includes most examples of the Highland Basket Hilt)is that they are delivered unsharpened and intended to be sharpened only before going into battle. I collect old sabres and I only have one that has ever been sharpened, and I know it was carried in the Second Afghan War.

I handled a couple of antique basket hilts dating from the early 1700's. It was obvious that both had been sharpened and certainly not anytime recently. It's true that some 18th and 19th Century cavalry units went into battle with unsharpened swords. Either the commander couldn't be bothered, or he wanted to provide some incentive to get his troopers to use the point.

As far as carbon content, heat treatment and so on, it's not a matter of Western vs. Japanese so much as who is making the blade. The Japanese weren't doing anything that wasn't being done elsewhere.

Dan Harden
14th January 2001, 04:47
Dave writes

The point isn't (or shouldn't be) drawing fast, and certainly not a fast noto, either of those could cost you fingers, blood, or a saya. The point is doing it correctly, smoothly, to segue into an attack or defense. For most iai, the draw and noto are mostly just the beginning and end of a form. The emphasis should be on the application of the same principles you are talking about.
**********************

The application of combative principles and the resultant techniques that I am talking about are probably substantially different than any applicable principles that you are talking about. The way you lump substanially different arts together below sort of guarantees me that.
The use of the sword is by no means the same from school to school, style to style.And some are so radically different as to be night and day

Dave again
Can you get there or will someone see that (oh impatient Americans) in a year or two? Probably not. The Omori set or the shoden set is just the beginning. I agree with you about seiza, but unfortunately most of us do not have a great deal of choice in the styles available to us. For those of us advanced in years , I would recommend Nakamura-ryu or Toyama-ryu. No kneeling forms, good two-man forms, plus tameshigiri. Not a lot of either around in the states (Guy Power, Bob Elder). I agree that iai by itself is not enough, a bit of kendo, and aikido, maybe some ju-jitsu will round it out nicely.

*****************************
To try to mix disparate arts in this way is a recipe for mediocrity in my opinion. It is a way to go nowhere....slowly.
The advanced in years comment has no merit either. There are oh so many adepts in their 70's who still practice.

Your mention of Aikido with the above is odd. Aikido is about as far away from effective weapons use as you are going to get while staying with Japanese arts. What they do works fine within Aikido. But compared to what else?
If you have your Kendo and iai in the same school you might as well stick to it till you get somewhere else.
And Aikido , kendo and setei-iai do not function the same way that effective weapons do. Or atl least in the way that I and apparently dozens of others here have come to know them. I would find the concurrent study of any, or all of the above, to be self defeating.


Dave again
I hope that whatever style we are doing it is to improve ourselves, strengthen our body and spirit, not to 'kick ass', at least not over here in the sword forum.


**************************
Well, without sounding too blatant, I do not pick up a gun, knife, Naginata, stick, bokuto or shinken to strengthen my body or spirit. I lift weights, stretch and run for one, and I volunteer, give to charity and pray for the other respectively.
I study weapons, and body arts as a pragmatic means to an end, within the paradigm of their use as an antiquated yet thoroughly relevant art. And I find it does not alter my caring, loving, self :)
I disavow any embarrassment at discussing better ways to defeat an opponent (or to "kick ass" as you put it) with weapons or without. It is what these arts were about. To make a practical study of the killing potential of antiquated weapons and a possible link to modern combatives and to explore that in depth does not make monsters out of men. Niether does the medatative study of solo weapons work make pansies out of them either.
However, If one were to spend years studying to defeat one self, and to be fine with that.
The other, studying a more pragmatic approach, may be pursuing that same goal :wink:

A critique of both methods can be relavant and amusing on a winters night.


Dave again
I won't say anything bad about kenjutsu (notice the respectful restraint? )
************************

Its not a question of bad as much as critque. And kenjutsu is no different than any other art. It has weaknesses and strengths. There are so few people on the earth studying these things anymore that we can all stand a little banter and disagreement, It does not weaken us.

Dave:
but are combative mechanics with a wooden sword substantively different, better, or more realistic, than with an iaito?

***********************
If you are including a live opponent in there to thwart your every effort....Yes they are, substatially so! add other weapons and body arts then even more so.
The crucible of Kata, and Shiai is frequently humbling, surprising, and ever changing. Even as you grow in skill and your speed decreases and you relax and you are simply always "there," where you need to be, to strike, or to drive Maai. All this with an exponent who is growing and ever challanging you as well.
But of course that depends on the school doesn't it?


Dave:
Historically accurate pursuit? Please.

*************

AS opposed to?
I would have to say that there are many arts with surviving scrolls of study. Are these modern adepts still imbuing the arts with the same ardor? Or even the same technical skills? Who knows.
But even casual observers can sometimes spot when the emporer has no clothes. As one fellow put it here (thanks Mark F). You do NOT necessarily need to study an art for decades to critique it. Have you ever read a book on boxing by even ONE champion boxer. All the coaching, techniques, stances, training, writing and judging, is done by men who do not box. Many who have never been in the ring at all.


OK, you are not a fan of iai, got it. Enjoy what you do.

Likewise Dave

Dan

Dan Harden
14th January 2001, 05:10
Dan writes
I handled a couple of antique basket hilts dating from the early 1700's. It was obvious that both had been sharpened and certainly not anytime recently. It's true that some 18th and 19th Century cavalry units went into battle with unsharpened swords. Either the commander couldn't be bothered, or he wanted to provide some incentive to get his troopers to use the point.

As far as carbon content, heat treatment and so on, it's not a matter of Western vs. Japanese so much as who is making the blade.

*****************************

This is not true Dan. If you look at studies done on weapons you will find fairly consistent data in era's and locales. The use of carbon content and the use of various methods to obtain it is a study unto itself. The decisions governing rockwell hardness were knowing and based on cultural use (en masse)Not based on billy the smith VS jimmy down the block in 1585
Get them rockwell tested. Then we’ll talk


Dan writes
The Japanese weren't doing anything that wasn't being done elsewhere.

************************************

As far as the Japanese forging methods and them not doing anything others were not doing in the same era;
that is not true.
I included a link below to some lengthy discourse between Joe Svinth, Earl Heartman and myself I don’t feel like repeating it all here.
The discussion of medieval forging methods and the various indigenous peoples approaches; they exhibited radically different solutions to common problems.They dd this by combinations of Carbon content, forge folding and/ or smelting methods, and heat treat. Advances were made culturally not individually. Withholding small little secrets form smith to smith is fine. Wholesale withholding of warfare arms improvements was a fast way to meet the man in charge and his henchman. It would be tatamount to treason

The viking forging methods of low carbon core with high carbon wraps , the east indians solution of Wootz that stymied all attempts at European forging of the cakes (interesting little secret to it)
the Europeans with blister and shear steel and the Japanese with an inner core (much different than the Viking core and the inclusion of clays to conquer the differential heat treat were different. AS well were its use and the final rockwell rating of the steel. Those in and of themselves made it unique. Not the best,.not by a long shot just different
more here
http://204.95.207.136/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2114&pagenumber=1




Dan

14th January 2001, 05:50
Dr Friday,

I have a question.

I believe it is a commonly accepted fact that in large battlefield troop engagements ( pre firearms ) various pole arms were the principle frontline weapons of choice along with various forms of archery. However, was it not the sword that was most often used to engage the vast numbers of wounded, injured and healthy that evaded death from these essentially long range weapons. The contention that the sword was "secondary" is fine as long as the implication is that long range weapons obviously engaged the enemy first but to use this obvious strategic employment to somehow minimize the swords importance as a battlefield weapon once the combat distance became a clash of bodies seems untidy to me.

I specifically remember written accounts of the Greeks making light of the Spartans short swords until they were trampled down by phalanx of Spartan warriors with spears and shields only to be finally dispatched with the Spartans handy "short" swords.

And like the person quoted earlier I am suspicious of supposed "data" to support a greater numbers of deaths from spears over swords from studying bones and such from battlefields. Am I to understand it is really possible to tell by bones fragments whether a sharp spear, sharp sword or sharp arrow resulted in final mortal blow during a pitched battle?

I suspect the truth is something we really don't know for sure. One thing that is for sure despite the debate over the actual place of swords on the battlefield. Japanese swordmakers spent an inordinately enormous amount of time perfecting their craft when compared to that of other Japanese weapons. They must have been useful for something besides chit chat.

:)

Interesting discussion as always on this subject.

Tobs

Dan Harden
14th January 2001, 14:11
Hi Tobs
happy new year

IF you re-read Karls responses in this post, he addresses several of those questions directly. I believe he said the studies included casualty reports and lists of various nature

AS far as your comments about the Japanese spending an "inordinately enormous" amount of time perfecting their sword making skills over other weapons........

Actually their sword making skills were ways to control the placment of carbon in the steel they used to make weapons and armor of all types. So, stated properly. The skills they used to make steel were evidenced in all of their weapons. Why did they lavish such special attention on the swords?
Their swordmaking skills did not require an inordinate amount time compared to efforts of other cultures either. Neither were they "advanced" over other cultures. The polish does take a heck of a lot of time, but that too is in doubt in the medievel era. It is generally agreed that no one knows what the level of polish was back then. Records show that many of the qualities we see today were visible in the blades but it remains inconclusive.
While the Japanese "cult of the sword" may be true, the Japanese sword as the penultimate sword is utter hogwash.
Their forging skills were not even unsual compared to other cultures of the same eras. Their methods were different but the skills used to produce forge welding in order to distribute carbon were becoming rather mundane in all cultures. I remember a comment that an American smith made while watching a Japanese smith work his trade . A comment that made it into print.
"Nothing new here. The only amazing thing is how well they do with such lousy material and primitive methodology."

In fact, the Indian wootz smelting techniques and the swords they produced were more difficult to make and were a better product. The viking swords exhibited far greater control and manipulation of material than the most complicated of the Japanese folding methods. Hell even the Javanese Kris with its meteorite forge folding method and intricately carved blade and fitting is more complicated than a Ken. Ever try to forge meteorite? What a pain!

The thing that set the Ken apart were

1. the visible perfection of the polish. The Japanese polish cannot be matched. It has no modern or anochronastic equivelent. Everyone else used acid to etch the grain. If your into looks (in other words, you want to se the visible results of the folding process, and want a servicable weapon) then acid etching is the way to go, and what the rest of the world used. You get to see the grain, the etching is deep and will last through cutting and field use. Since the surface is oxidized already a coating of oil will keep it longer and it will restore easier.

2. The fittings. Everything else pales to the quality of the sword fittings on your average Japanese blade? Not true either.
The warriors blades were simple. And the temple swords of Japanese culture had peers in the fittings produced by many other cultures.

2. Overall it was the quality of the Japanese processes COMBINED that produced the legend; forging, Yakiba, fittings and polish. It is the quality of each process that combined to make a work of deadly art. It does make one pretty package doesn't it?

Beyond that, I doubt we will ever know WHY they placed so much importance on swords. IT is more than likely a culutral thing.You had an insular culture with a lot of wars which produced a warped view of the important things in life. While I admire some of the arts perfected as a result I do not Admire the process that got them there, nor the way they expressed it.
When the country opened up there was a great deal of mystery surrounding the Japanese Archipelago and we sucked up the myth of the Japanese sword like everyone else.

Please dont anyone read this and tell me I am "down on" Japanese swords. READ!
I love them too. I just try to see them in their proper place on the world stage.

Dan

[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-14-2001 at 01:13 PM]

socho
14th January 2001, 19:31
Dan,
we're getting a lot of air time with this. I can see that we're not going to agree on some areas, but that's ok.

Dan:
1. The application of combative principles and the resultant techniques that I am talking about are probably substantially different than any applicable principles that you are talking about.
- maybe, maybe not, guess we'll have to compare notes one of these days.

2. (Dave)
... a bit of kendo, and aikido, maybe some ju-jitsu will round it out nicely.
Dan:
To try to mix disparate arts in this way is a recipe for mediocrity in my opinion.
- I'm not talking about mixing, I'm talking about learning. I think each of those arts and many others have something valid to teach. Wish I had another couple of lifetimes to work on them. Learning only one art is like reading only one book. It might be a good one, but you're missing out on a lot. If you're looking for historical accuracy, samurai learned a number of weapons and arts, such as spear, bow, horsemanship, sword and others. Single style schools that we see today became the rule during the peaceful Edo period, after the need for war arts had passed (Dr Friday, you out there?). The fact that a style may date from this period is interesting, but no more likely to be realistic or 'combat-effective' than a modern art.

3. The advanced in years comment has no merit either. There are oh so many adepts in their 70's who still practice.
- I was talking about seiza. After a couple of knee surguries, I no longer enjoy it. Well aware that this is a lifetime pursuit. My sensei in Japan was 89, most of his senior folk were in their 70's. I should be in such good shape.

4. Well, without sounding too blatant, I do not pick up a gun, knife, Naginata, stick, bokuto or shinken to strengthen my body or spirit...
- I do. Anybody else?

5. To make a practical study of the killing potential of antiquated weapons and a possible link to modern combatives and to explore that in depth does not make monsters out of men. Niether does the meditative study of solo weapons work make pansies out of them either.
- fully agree

6. A critique of both methods can be relavant and amusing on a winters night.
- something to look forward to.

7. There are so few people on the earth studying these things anymore that we can all stand a little banter and disagreement, It does not weaken us.
- agree again.

(Dave)
... but are combative mechanics with a wooden sword substantively different, better, or more realistic, than with an iaito?

Dan:
8. If you are including a live opponent in there to thwart your every effort....Yes they are, substantially so! add other weapons and body arts then even more so.
- weren't you just saying not to mix arts?

9. But of course that depends on the school doesn't it?
- without a doubt. Perhaps even more on the instructor.

Regards to all,

dbeaird
14th January 2001, 21:53
Originally posted by Dan Harden

This is not true Dan....


I hadn't meant to imply that the forging methods were identical, or that there were not cultural differences in the "standard" way of making weapons. What I was trying to say is that everything that was done by Japanese smiths in creation of their swords was known by those in the West and used at various times or places. I think we'd agree that the Western battlefield differed considerably from the Japanese battlefield and that weapons and therefore weapon construction was different between the two. To sum up, the Japanese sword isn't superior in construction or design than Western swords. Each evolved into what was needed to supply the warriors.

Sadly, Western swords tend to be in much worse condition than the Japanese counterparts. Although the Japanese have had a tendency of preserving only the best. My understanding is that there were blades mass produced during the Singoku period that were out and out awful. I think this happens in any culture where they decide they'd rather have swords in quantity than swords of quality. Testing blade hardness doesn't prove much really, I'll freely admit that Japanese blades tended to be harder than Western blades. Not because Western smiths couldn't make steel that hard, but because the intended use dictated a certain hardness for the weapon.

It's true in both cultures though that the quality of steel could fluctuate wildly depending on local sources. I think that Japanese smiths had an easier time of refining their iron sand than their counterparts did iron ore in the West. Up until the time foundries were established there wasn't much consistancy anywhere.

14th January 2001, 23:06
Hi Dan,

Happy New year to you too.

You stated:

"Actually their sword making skills were ways to control the placment of carbon in the steel they used to make weapons and armor of all types. So, stated properly. The skills they used to make steel were evidenced in all of their weapons. Why did they lavish such special attention on the swords?"

Then if spears were so much more important than swords why do they seem generally less sophisticated in design and execution? Maybe they were made more quickly, in greater quantity and therfore more haphazardly? And if true, where are they all? Ever tried to find a nice old yari blade?
Not impossible by any means but really tough compared to finding great old swords.

And you never really answered that last sentence. If the sword was used in battle as little as you seem to claim, why so much attention to it? There can be much enormous speculation concerning this phenomonon but ultimately I don't think any of us know the answer for a fact, despite scholary study & conjecture.

I know this is hypothetical but lets try a little common sense here... If you were in a pitched battle and your distance of engagement had left archery and spears ineffective, what weapon would you have chosen. A sword sounds good to me. Some might call that choice "secondary" I however would not if the implication of the term "secondary" was in level of importance. I guess this is where the confusion/disagreement comes from. What is mean't by "secondary" to one person may mean a completely different "secondary" to another. I might call the sword in that capacity "complimentary" insted of "secondary"

Dan, generally I agree with almost all you contentions to one degree or another.... it's just in the "degrees" where I find reason for comment and ocassional skepticism.

Also:

"While the Japanese "cult of the sword" may be true, the Japanese sword as the penultimate sword is utter hogwash."

As a past student of western fencing and appreciator of middle eastern weaponry I whole heartedly agree. A mail sleeved and caged rapier is a work of practical genius to behold. Truly, the various sword designs are kind of a case of rock, scizzors & stone aren't they!

Now if we can get back that discussion a while back about quenching ... was it Viking steel in Yak piss... or something like that. God the stuff I learn here on E-budo from you guys cracks me up! Joe Svinth, where are you!

Keep the fun coming!

Tobs

Dan Harden
14th January 2001, 23:20
D Bierd writes
I hadn't meant to imply that the forging methods were identical, or that there were not cultural differences in the "standard" way of making weapons. What I was trying to say is that everything that was done by Japanese smiths in creation of their swords was known by those in the West and used at various times or places.

Well..Its not that I am trying to be contrary But....

Everything that was done by the Japanese smiths was not known by the west for hundreds of years. Once they "showed" their methods of manufacture it become sort of "Oh Yeah, Got it."
What I was also trying to explain was that the forging skills were are all common, right down to wetting the anvil to blow off scale, and using clay fluxs. BUT, the "methods" (not skills)were different. Particularly the application of clay to differentially harden. Differnetial tempering was accomplished differently in different cultures by different methods, but the intent and skills were common

****************************
D again
I think we'd agree that the Western battlefield differed considerably from the Japanese battlefield and that weapons and therefore weapon construction was different between the two. To sum up, the Japanese sword isn't superior in construction or design than Western swords. Each evolved into what was needed to supply the warriors.

agreed except I could easily discuss many different methods not just TWO

********************************
D again
Sadly, Western swords tend to be in much worse condition than the Japanese counterparts. Although the Japanese have had a tendency of preserving only the best.

This isn't entirely true. Famous makers made lousy blades so so makers made great blades. And do not EVER think some collector who loves the look of a blade or its pedigree may necessarily know "diddly" about the potential weakness of his prized blades. I knew a Japanese sword society guy who loved his Koto blade with very pronounced Nie and with a groove. He thought it would be an excellent "cutter" due to its size. It had lousy distal taper, the ha was worn down to a fraction of itself, it was to thin, and the Nie exhibited such a large grain that I jokingly said make sure your insurance is paid and no one is around when you try it.
In essense, smiths are smiths. We are a decidedly pragmatic bunch and probably have a better understanding of what's going on with steel then many of the collectors
There are, I would guess, tens of thousands of blades by unkown makers that are every bit as good as the well known ones. Some may even be better. Men make legends out of other men, and then those poor slobs either have to live up to the artifial construct, make money selling wares to the morons who elevated them, or simply try to ignore them and go back to work.

***************************************
D again
My understanding is that there were blades mass produced during the Singoku period that were out and out awful. I think this happens in any culture where they decide they'd rather have swords in quantity than swords of quality. Testing blade hardness doesn't prove much really, I'll freely admit that Japanese blades tended to be harder than Western blades. Not because Western smiths couldn't make steel that hard, but because the intended use dictated a certain hardness for the weapon.

Testing blade hardness when researching manufacture and intended use is VERY telling and proves many things.
Without going into detail. IF you give me a blunt,double edge weapon of light weight that has a single handle. I am going to check its rockwell hardness and others of its type and compare it to the materials maximum obtainable hardness Then I would research any records of warfare, including: armor worn and by what perecentage of the combatants and any records of strategy of both large scale and small scale tactics of the culture I can find. I would speculate you would find that it used to have sharp edges as part of its design. And hardness was sought after to produce the best edge retention possible. It is in the design parameters of the weapon.
Give me a huge broadsword with blunt edges, and find that it was made out of a product capable of produsing high hardness. Than let me find that many of the combatants wore shield and armor, and then let me rockwell test it to find that the smiths used methods that produced a rockwell hardness below that attainable by them for the materials used and I will speculate that the edges were blunted, and the blade tempered back to afford the user greater impact strength.
This is all to simplistic and shot full of holes but my only recourse is to write an essay
Suffice to say that rockwell hardness is very, very important as a "piece" of the overall intent of the weapon

**********************************
D again
It's true in both cultures though that the quality of steel could fluctuate wildly depending on local sources.

I dont know how much I can agree to that. The Japanese had centrally located sources for smelting and the smiths knew what to do with the steel to de-carborize or recarborize the steel. The europeans had blister and shear steels made in locales and sold to individual smiths. Indians smelted Wootz in samll crucibles and had tight control over the product, Scaninavians had bog ore to smelt as well.
I would expect the failures were more often those of individual smiths not the smelted steel they used.

*********************************************
D again
I think that Japanese smiths had an easier time of refining their iron sand than their counterparts did iron ore in the West. Up until the time foundries were established there wasn't much consistancy anywhere.

I think you would find that wootz production (the original damascus)was the easiest smelting method. It was NOT the easiest to work after though. And blister steel was a hell of alot easier to make than standing at a tatara smelter for days on end feeding the damn thing. The Japanese would have been MUCH better off dealing with a sealed crucible method. A lot less material to load due to reduced loss. And the quality control of the carbon distribution would have risen dramatically.

Dan

[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-14-2001 at 05:24 PM]

Dan Harden
14th January 2001, 23:51
Hi Dan,

Happy New year to you too.

Then if spears were so much more important than swords why do they seem generally less sophisticated in design and execution? Maybe they were made more quickly, in greater quantity and therfore more haphazardly? And if true, where are they all? Ever tried to find a nice old yari blade?
Not impossible by any means but really tough compared to finding great old swords.
And you never really answered that last sentence. If the sword was used in battle as little as you seem to claim, why so much attention to it?

*******************************
Me
Hey Tobs

I never claimed any of it. I repeated what I had read. If you go back and read the original post on that "other" forum, and then the "respondants reply" back then, then mine, you will see what I mean. I think you know where to find it ..yes?

It so happens that I have strong reservations about it as well. Maybe even stronger than your own. But you never asked me that.

I frequently play devils advocate and argue the merits of both sides to see what people think. I have done this before as well without ever offering my personal views of the given topic.

****************************

>snip of excellent conjecture<

Dan, generally I agree with almost all you contentions to one degree or another.... it's just in the "degrees" where I find reason for comment and ocassional skepticism.

*******************************
me
Of this particualr topic at hand, I have never given anyone an opinion of mine. You know why? I don't have one.I have offered conjecture, but thats it. What do I know?

You have Karl and others of his calibur doing exhaustive
research. My hats off to them. I am sure they are intent on being thorough, and the results will be interesting.There are men who do this for living and have spent years doing it. We may all be skeptical about it, I am sure they are to, its a tenant of their discipline to be skeptical, but I am willing to sit back and listen to their findings.

The rest is just opinion. Some qualified, most not. Deductive reasoning based on what MEN (gees how UNdependable is that!) wrote or what they gave testimony to what happened can be a trap. Even if it is compared with other lists. We lie, we cover up, we remember incorrectly, we dream of glory and try to fit the actions to the dream, we artifically elevate events to magify our causes...not for me to sift through that ilk.

Cut to the year 2250
Lets have someone read the casualty and enemy Kill reports from Nam as reported by the U.S. and NVA. They both LIED!!

Lets ask a Japanese PHD in American warfare to go over there 275 years later and reinvent battles and causes of injury.
That would be interesting as well

Karl and others have their work cut out for them. Must be fun and exhausting to be a detective of history. I hope some of these guys can get funding for this type of work

******************************


Now if we can get back that discussion a while back about quenching ... was it Viking steel in Yak piss... or something like that. God the stuff I learn here on E-budo from you guys cracks me up! Joe Svinth, where are you!

Keep the fun coming!

Tobs

*************************

Oil and water and that was about it.

Sort of like peoples opinions and outlooks here sometimes..they don't mix well :)

Dan


[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-14-2001 at 06:09 PM]

ben johanson
15th January 2001, 00:00
Toby wrote,

"...if spears were so much more important than swords why do they seem generally less sophisticated in design and execution?"

Because spears are by nature less sophisticated weapons than the sword. What is a spear? Essentially its just a blade on a long stick. That basic design has not been significantly changed since the early days of man. Swords, on the other hand, by their nature are more complicated and more difficult to produce.

"If the sword was used in battle as little as you seem to claim, why so much attention to it?"

The "cult of the sword," and the sword being looked at as a symbol of the samurai class in Japan did not really start until the Tokugawa period, when battles were no longer fought. Other than that, I don't know what you mean by "so much attention," but I am positive much attention was paid to the study of the spear, as well as to the sword, during the Sengoku period. As Dr Friday stated in his first post on this topic, the famous swordsmen of the day were also famous as spearmen. All ryuha at that time taught several weapon arts; ryuha that specialized in only one discipline did not come about until the Tokugawa period.

As far as your hypothetical battlefield scenario, I really don't think it was as complicated as all of that. Samurai charged into battle with their primary weapon, which was usually a spear, but could have also been a naginata, or no dachi, or one of the various types of club; if they lost that weapon somehow, they drew their swords. It was probably that simple.

I would call that a "secondary" function, in that the sword was only used in very specific situations. The swords major importance was not in battle. Many of the famous swordsmen of the Sengoku period earned their reputations fighting in sword duels.

But don't take my word for it. I'm basiclly just reiterating what Dr Friday said earlier.

dbeaird
15th January 2001, 02:03
Originally posted by Dan Harden

Well..Its not that I am trying to be contrary But....

Dan


I'm fully aware that I was taking a very simplistic approach using the concept of "Western" swords and smiths. We agree on the principal concept and we can leave it at that. I can discuss a few more than two myself.

My experience (not as a blademaker, but as a blade user and collector) is that smiths do not (at least should not, some modern wall hanger makers seem to disagree with me) seek maximum hardness in any blade. They seek a balance of toughness and hardness to make the blade meet the needs of the user. Your concept that Western "broadswords" were dull is out and out false. Of course the blades didn't hold an edge as well as a harder steel might, they could still be sharpened and they could cut very well. Perhaps it's a difference of opinion of what constitutes sharp in your vocabulary and mine.

I think we're mostly in agreement here, (aside from the dull sword idea) but we don't seem to be using the words that each other likes. Maybe someday we'll have the chance to discuss it over a few beers.

Dan Harden
15th January 2001, 03:36
Hey Dan
My wrtiing is sometimes very dry. If I sound too flat, or dictitorial try not to take it that way ok? :) I also get passionate about smithing

*******************
you wrote
My experience (not as a blademaker, but as a blade user and collector) is that smiths do not (at least should not, some modern wall hanger makers seem to disagree with me) seek maximum hardness in any blade.

I respond
I know of no smith that ignorant. I know of no grinder jockey that stupid either. And last, I know of no commercial maker for the past twenty or so years that stupid either. Even commercial stainless users are using subzero quenches (this gives an added 2 points of rockwell wthout sacrificing ductility) and holding to a 58-60 C on small blades. Maximum hardnes in many of these steels will get you into the 64-66C range this is to brittle to be of practical use to anyone and thats why no one on the earth produces it.
I would love to know the name of any maker this ignorant. He must be working in a vaccum.


************************************
you wrote
They seek a balance of toughness and hardness to make the blade meet the needs of the user. Your concept that Western "broadswords" were dull is out and out false. Of course the blades didn't hold an edge as well as a harder steel might, they could still be sharpened and they could cut very well. Perhaps it's a difference of opinion of what constitutes sharp in your vocabulary and mine.

*******************************
me again
No, they are incapable of holding an edge to any reasonable standard as set by people in the business of bladeware the world over. Opinion does not matter here, and its another example of what I meant when I said rockwell testing is telling.
Of the swords tested that I know of, and of reports that I have paperwork on here, the rockwell ratings were in the high 40c-low 50c range. Again, that will not hold an edge by any acceptable standard of any smith, benchmaker, or commercial maker that I know of. In fact it would be rejected. You would be luckey to get anything past 10 cuts on a rope with that. What it will do however, is support a canard edge with a thick geometry. This will not cut and slice per se, but it will produce nasty impact wounds, and cut open flesh, while supporting itself on impacts with harder objects

While neither of us can speak for swords worldwide I will try to present a logical case for you. The only cultures that produced differentially hardened blades, were the Japanese , the vikings, the Indian Wootz, and the Kukri. Each was heat teated in a markedly different fashion to arrive at similar result. of those the Wootz were hardest the Japanese next then viking blades, then Kukri. The wootz is in a class by itself as it does not exhibit martensite, yet it is in the low 60'sC rockwell. Interesting huh?

Other cultures could not, or did not care to resolve the problem of edge holding VS a shock absorbant body. What they did was to heat treat the entirety of the blade and draw the whole thing back to a spring temper. This produced a shock absobant body with an edge hard enough to strike with. It is one of th reasons you typically see a canard edge(appleseed) on these tpyes of blades. They will not support a fine edge which is why they were not made with fine edges but they will absorb shock and not break.You will find this method in swords of all types and era's wordwide..STEEL IS STEEL and these men were not stupid.
You would do well to examine edge geometry in conjuntion with rockwell ratings, in conjuntion with use to get a clearer picture of what swords were meant to do.

As far as what constitutes edge holding sharpness.....You can call it a matter of your opinion or mine if you want to. But barring a point or two rockwell C, it is an issue with no dispute among makers both custom and commercial to my knowledge. Further , the standards are exhibited in bladeware around the known world. STEEL IS STEEL
In fact, the standards are so "set" and agreed upon that they are simply a non issue and constitute a simple course of study for anyone interested.
Hope this helps

Dan



[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-14-2001 at 09:46 PM]

Joseph Svinth
15th January 2001, 09:48
Toby --

Perhaps you have been channeling Neil in the Scotch threads, but your memory has combined different stories. For example, the reindeer urine story that you recall had to do traditional methods of rendering certain psychotropic mushrooms non-fatal to humans. This has to do with Siberian vision quests and perhaps Norse berserkers, but so far as I know, it had nothing to do with cutlery manufacture.

Meanwhile, into the 17th century physicians sometimes attempted sympathetic cures by putting herbal "cures" on the sword that caused the injury. Read the ingredient lists and I assure you it was a good thing that the cures went on the sword, as they would have done little but infect the wound.

:)

MarkF
15th January 2001, 10:48
I think you are being kind to only include physicians of that era. Until the early 1990s, neo-natal surgeons operated on patients without any anesthesia, but I guess that is why Hippocrates wanted to keep surgeons and physicans separate, and why modern lawyers found a legal way of combining them, but then you know what Shakespeare said we must do with lawyers (notwithstanding those who contribute here, of course.:D )

Just some guy
15th January 2001, 11:03
"Then if spears were so much more important than swords why do they seem generally less sophisticated in design and execution? Maybe they were made more quickly, in greater quantity and therfore more haphazardly? And if true, where are they all? Ever tried to find a nice old yari blade? Not impossible by any means but really tough compared to finding great old swords. "

I have to agree with mr Johnson on this one. Yes you are right that Swords were much more sophisticated than Spears were. However, most of this was simply becasue a Spear is a less complicated weapon. Compairing the two is simmiler, in my Opinion, to compairing a Hand gun to a guided missle. Spears are weapons that do not need as much complexity as do the sword. The Spear techniques I know, though yes do involve some cutting (actualy I have only seen one cut in all of the Kata I have seen) are mostly stabbing or bashing with the shaft of the spear. A stabbing does not need the edge holding that a sword does and therefore, the level of smithing needed is far less (Mr Harden, feel free to disagree with me here).

Also, the fact that very few spears remain is more proof that they were the primary weapon and had much more importance over the sword. If they are going out to battle and getting broke everyday then why bother making a great piece of work. If there were hundres of spears that were in perfect condition that dated back to the Sengoku era, then I think your argument would have a better ground. If it's used, it breaks. I think that one of the few constant things in the universe.

Moving on, I think that the general skill level that is needed to use a sword pretty much ruls out it's use as a primary battlefield weapon. Using a sword effectivly requires a lot of skill in compairison to the spear. I doubt that they really had time to speand teaching everyone the sword effectively (I've heard some teachers state that it requiers 10 years to learn to use a sword effectively). The Spear on the other hand could be taught in a few days.

A similar situation can bee seen with the introcution of Firearms into Japan. As I understand, the Firearm was very Popular however, a skilled group of archers would have better chances against the same number of gunmen because the Bow had a much higher rate of fire and could therfore take out more of the gunmen before they could reload after their first shot. However, the Firearm was still very popular. Why? Because it took much less time to train a group of solders to use a rifle than to use a Bow. Having learned to use both a bow and a gun myslf, I can tell you from personal, a gun is a much easier weapon to use, compairativly speaking.

In the end, I don't think we can ever say for cirtain the exact role the sword played in Japanese warfair. We can leave that to the Profs. I do think that we can agree though that the spearman was the primary defence and offence of the milirary. Given its supirior reach over the sword, and how much less training that the weapon needed it is simply the logical choice for the military of the time.

Well that's my thoughts. I do need to say that this is one great thread so far. Can't wait to see what happens next.

jchetty
15th January 2001, 12:13
Just an uneducated guess based largely on that great game, Shogun Total war.

If the majority of spear wielders were generally ashigaru then there is no need to bother much about the spear. All you need is a lot of peasants who now how to poke with a spear.

The samurai would likely be in a more protected position and would need to resort to their swords if their peasants were overrun during the battle. In this chaotic melee a sword would be the best weapon.

Since bujutsu are samurai arts rather than peasant arts then the sword is going to be emphasised (both for the battlefield and for drunken brawling/dueling).

I have no evidence for any of this so please pardon my ignorance. Correction will also be welcome.

Cheers,

dbeaird
15th January 2001, 15:08
Originally posted by Dan Harden

I respond
I know of no smith that ignorant. I know of no grinder jockey that stupid either.

Dan

[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-14-2001 at 09:46 PM]

Well Dan, it seems we differ in opinion. One of the interesting things about swords nowadays vs swords back then, is that back then the experts were the people who used the swords and nowadays it's the people who make them. Sort of the difference between buying a yugo because you want a yugo and buying a yugo because it's the only thing they make because it's the only thing you'll ever need.

I have one other question for you though. Despite all the logical evidence brought about by your knowledge of metal and smithing, do you have any historcal reference that sword blades were used dull? I know I don't have the technical ability to argue martensite/austinite/pearlite and whatever other ites, but I've held the swords, the old ones. I've seen evidence of sharpening and no amount of argument is going to make me doubt what I've seen. I would think a trip to the Tower of London might help convince you.

Oh, and re blades in the low 40's on the scale, where did you see or hear of these? I can only assume we're talking dark age blades or some smiths mistake. The typical medieval sword was somewhere in the low to mid 50's I believe (which isn't saying that they all were).

Maybe I'll chuck a couple of these comments out on SFI and get some more opinions. I'm feeling mighty confused here, it's like everything I've learned about swords is wrong all of a sudden.

Dan Harden
15th January 2001, 15:29
Maybe there is some clarification that needs to be made here regarding the continually repeated premis

"spears were not made as well"
"spear were not as sophisticated as swords"
"spears didn't need to be the same hardness to cut or stab"

Again you need to realize we are talking about steel.
How do you make steel?
Where do you get steel?

Where did they get steel?


Once you answer those questions you will realize that the smith, HAD to use the same steel to make a Ken, tanto, naginata or Yari. The Fact that there are Hamon on these weapons is evidance of a carbon content suitable for the weapon. Carbon content that could only be obtained through the forge folding process. And a hamon is evidance of a carbon range between .45%-.95%
**************************************************
Somebody spent a hell of a lot of work and time getting themselves there.
******************************

I have seen many weapons koto-shin shinto. The Spears and Naginata were all differentially hardened, some having "more" complicated Hamon then Ken and exhibited grain. Double edge spears are difficult to make and polish and the placing of the clay for the hamon is more difficult as well. IF you argue that they may have not exhibited the same folding processes, I will agru back that they exhibit surface grain like the ken. IF they do not have san mai or kobuse cores of lower carbn steel I will argue thay are BETTER weapons for that, not less.


Therefore, I believe that the answer to Toby's question of "Why more swords?" lies elsewhere from a manufacturing standpoint.


Perhaps Karl can tell us what the percentages weapons used in an army were.
100,000 troops
200,000 swords (ken and wak)
100,000 knives
60,000 bowman
20,000 spearman

Including Ken and wakazashi that would be 10-1

Add to these percentages
1. perhaps the swords broke easier (were used more?hmmm.)
so more were made 11-1?
2. the swords were more important symbals of power so
they wanted more 12-1?
3. that everyone simply wanted a spare or two. but didn't
need/ want a spare spear? 20-1?
4. that the civilians also had swords. Maybe a couple of
them but didn't feel a need to own a spear or halberd
30-1?
5. perhaps the spears were more of a Garrison (Daimyo)
supplied item
6. Swords continued to be made far beyond the practical
use of spears in the Sengoku Jidai.
For centuries no less.
7. There is supportable evidence of Naginata being
shortened into swords. I have seen three

all of this this might explain Toby's question.

I don't know these answers But Karl might. I find it hard to believe that there would be 100,000 spears (of course). How could you wield that many on a field due to depth, rotation of troops, etc.

So, could these reasonings here be a potential explanation for swords in a ratio of what? 30-1
I don't know. I would bet that our reasoning is flawed and based on false premises. We need a factual (read historical) premis to base it on.

Since I am admitedly out of my element here, as well as everyone else. Karl's answers, or our own reading, may produce an arguement worth hearing.

Dan

[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-15-2001 at 11:23 AM]

Dan Harden
15th January 2001, 15:51
Dan

For staters you are simply not HEARING me
its the flaw of written communication. well....my flaw anyway :)

I have said twice, that they WERE sharpened to a dull edge, an edge with a thicker geometry then a flat grind. How they may have been re-sharpened over the remainder of their lives I do not know. And Again a rockwell in the low 50's is horrible for holding a sharp edge. It will not support itself. It doesn't have the strength. It will simply ROLL right over on impact with a hard object. Hense the dull edge. At least it won't chip though.
Again it is telling that you would think a rockwell in the low 50's would support a sharpened edge. That view is somewhat unique in my experience. The Broadswords of the 16th and 17th centuries, albeit Scotish, Italian what have you, were drawn back in temper for the simple reason that they were impact weapons and the smiths could not resolve how to differential harden them. Whether it be through manipulation of materials or through quenching they just didn't. The processes they used protected the body of the blade, while supporting a usable edge.

It is worth noting that they were impact weapons Dan.
when you compare these to mideastern weaponry, Japanese weaponry, and the pacific island weaponry, you find sharp edges designed for cutting not so much for impact and a rockwell to support that edge.
When you compare them to a kukri you find different characterisitics. The Kukri is tempered to the mid50s'C it too doesn't hold an edge well, but it used for cutting hacking, digging etc. and can be sharped easily. It is important to note an rockwel increase of just 2 or 3 points is huge in edge retention. But you see, the Kukri smiths copuld have made the blade harder, they knew how. They just didn't because of the intended use.

All of these culures knew what they were doing

Anyway..This is well excepted information, your arguments are rather unsusual.

My arguements have been based upon:
1. 25 years of smithing
2. a metalurgist for a father in law (who lives with me)
3. Practical hands on experience with the physical characteristics of many different types of steel from simple carbon to the most advanced powder metalurgy steel in the world (none of which makes me exceptional. There a hundreds of smiths with similar backgrounds)
4. Historical Information from museum curators and restorors of:
a. "one" of the largest collections of medievil armors and weapons in the known world, "Higgens Armory" which is about 10 miles from my house. They also have thousand of NON exhibited material as well.I have been in their vault room and it is filled with Javanese Kris, Kukris, Japanese weaponry, and what not. They simply do not have room to display it all.
b. Access to the Boston Museum of Fine arts. Ackowledged home, of the the largest collection of Japanese armors and weapons outside of Japan. with an excellent Asian curator I might add. That is about 45 miles from my house.

5. Many, books on the subject which my wife will kill me if a take out of storage (I am rebuilding my house to a prarrie/arts and crafts style and the place is a mess)

My information is accurate to my knowledge. And I do not consider myself an expert on steel by any means. But arguements on steel and its use in weapons of war can be based on certain factual premisses. The characteristics of simple carbon steel were a relative constant for centuries. The practical designs, and geometry of extent weaponry is evidence of the makers understanding of the limits of the material and expresses each cultures attempts at resolving the riddle of steel.


You know Dan
Its great to disagree and still act like gentlemen though
huh? You STAY on point. So, Its a pleasure to talk with you.

Dan

[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-15-2001 at 10:28 AM]

Karl Friday
15th January 2001, 16:49
Originally posted by Toby Threadgill


Then if spears were so much more important than swords why do they seem generally less sophisticated in design and execution?

Well, first of all, sophistication or complexity of design and use DOESN'T equal military importance or efficacy; so the argument here isn't valid. But more importantly, it's also very hard to defend the premise that spears and spear technique are/were less sophisticated than sword design.

Spear points were/are forged in exactly the same manner as swords; they even have a tang mounted into a hilt and held there by a peg, just like a sword. There are also a dozen or more kinds of spear blades, and several variations on haft design as well.

And if spear techniques seem simple, it's probably because a spear is a more straight-forward weapon--literally. Spears are used almost exclusively for thrusting attacks, while swords are used for both cutting and thrusts.

A second factor here is one that's come up a couple of times already in this thread: the effect of the Tokugawa peace on martial art. During the Tokugawa period samurai martial art came to focus more and more heavily on the sword. At the same time, bugei training became more organized and more commercialized, and sword techniques and kata often became more elaborate and flowery. Spears, on the other hand, are pretty much exclusively battlefield weapons. Which means that they received less attention during the Tokugwa period, so that sojutsu techniques escaped much of the elaboration and adaptation to dueling (and other un-armored combat) that characterized Tokugawa and later sword techniques.

But while most sojutsu techniques may be less complex than some sword techniques, they are not crude or simplistic. I'd rank Kashima-Shinryu spear tactics, for example, as the most subtle and the interesting techniques in the system.

Karl Friday
15th January 2001, 17:15
Just another thought to toss in here:

Reasoning about the importance of a given weapon in warfare during any particular era on the basis of comparative ratios of various weapons around today is a very slippery tool that only rarely yields worthwhile conclusions. The numbers of any tool that survive into the present are a function of too many things--including the perishability of the tool or its parts, its long-term symbolic value, the point at which it stopped being considered useful, and the like--to permit straight-forward, one-to-one analysis of this sort.

Consider, for example, the number of medieval European long-bows, lances, crossbows, or even early firearms that survive today, relative to the number of swords and daggers. Consider also the number of sets of oyoroi and other armor for high-ranking samurai that are still around today, compared to the number of sets of ashigaru armor (surely no one would argue that there were more high-ranking samurai than foot soldier/grunts running around on medieval battlefields?).

If there are more swords around today than spears (and I'm not sure this is actually true), it's largely the result of what 20th century collectors and others have chosen to keep around. Swords were symbolic weapons for the samurai, and were treated as family heirlooms. They were also symbolic (and to some extent, practical) weapons for the Imperial Army and Navy. Spears became obsolete as weapons with the adoption of modern firearms (and bayonets) during the Meiji era. Spear blades were far more likely than sword blades to have been lost, destroyed, thrown away, or recycled into other tools.

dbeaird
15th January 2001, 21:17
Originally posted by Dan Harden
...

You know Dan
Its great to disagree and still act like gentlemen though
huh? You STAY on point. So, Its a pleasure to talk with you.

Dan


That is something around here it seems isn't it?

Like I said earlier, it's a matter of personal definition of sharp I think. Other than that, obviously our experiences differ radically and it's easier to change religions than it is to change an opinion. I have quite a lot of experience in this area myself, and the things I've seen and read from you remind me of the hollwood swordfighting method where sword fighting consists of banging the edge of your sword into the edge of the other guys sword, evidently until one of you gets tired.

Double edged swords of the typical medieval type(Oh, I might add that the term "broadsword" is a relatively recent term and isn't used much by the people who study medieval swordplay. I challenge you to a find a reference to a broadsword as a specific sword type in a period text.) were double edged and symmetrical precisely because the edge was easily lost. Turn the sword over and it's like you've got a new one.

Reading period texts you will find these weapons could be used for draw cuts (the ol' coup de Jarnac springs to mind of course) as well as capable of slicing cuts, but they were best at hacking and chopping where, I agree, sharpness of edge is not as important as with a true cut. Now there's so many types of European sword out there that this is a gross oversimplification.

Recently the Talhoffer Fechtbuch was published with English translation and commentary. Most of the sword work covered the long sword, and a study will show that the sword was used for a variety of cuts. The beautiful illustrations also show some limbs being lopped off, not something that is really possible (well maybe possible but not bloody likely) with a sword that won't cut. I think it's published under the name Medieval Combat or something similar.

I think at this point that we should agree to disagree, or go find ourselves another expert to arbitrate. It is a pleasure discussing this with you, although I feel like I'm violating some e-budo rule by not dismissing your theories out of hand. Maybe we should call each other a few names just to keep our reputations intact.

Earl Hartman
15th January 2001, 22:24
Dan(s):

Interesting to see this topic come up again. Also glad to see that there are others that refrain from name-calling.

Anyway, something occurred to me: it seems to me that the definition of sharp should be considered in a relative context. Let us assume, as is likely, that European weapons were never as sharp, in an absolute sense, as Japanese ones. However, there are many European period illustrations showing people using swords to cleave helms and skulls and lop off limbs. Even allowing for poetic license, I think that it is safe to assume that there is some truth to these illustrations and that swords had edges that could cut things.

For example, in the late 14th century, a battle took place at Visby on the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea. (I think its Gotland, anyway. Can't remember if it's Danish or Swedish, though). The dead were hastily buried in mass graves, some still in their armor. The excavation of these graves gave researchers much insight into the armor and weapons of the period.

One thing they found was a preponderance of bladed-weapon wounds in the lower legs and at the junction of the neck and shoulder, indicating that these were favorite targets. Some bodies had one or both of their legs entirely lopped off, perhaps by two-handed swords (could have been glaives, who knows).

Anyway, a blade is as sharp/strong as what it is up against. A European weapon may not be able to keep its edge against a harder blade (Japanese, Viking, Wootz, or other) but would probably have been servicable against a weapon with similar limitations; that is, within its context, and against the weapons and armor it was designed to face, it would have been "sharp".

Scott
15th January 2001, 23:23
Earl,

Good points!! I agree. It seems that it is not as much a question of whether a sword is sharp as, is it sharp enough. (To get the job done.)

Lao Tzu said, (paraphrased from memory) A knife that is too sharp, dulls easily."

Sincerely,

Dan Harden
16th January 2001, 03:53
DanB writes
I have quite a lot of experience in this area myself, and the things I've seen and read from you remind me of the hollwood swordfighting method where sword fighting consists of banging the edge of your sword into the edge of the other guys sword, evidently until one of you gets tired.

WHAT??? :rolleyes: are we digging a little and getting off point :wink:

As a smith, and practicioner of Japanese weaponry, I can assure you I have explained and then shown, many times what happens to an edge after and "edge to edge" controntation. It is a definite case of what not to do. Although I have seen four of the highest ranked Japanese Shihans in the country show it over and over spanning years of time. I just sat there and smiled.
I will be willing to bet I have shown it more times, ruining more edges, (I can afford to fix em) then most men you will meet. I have also shown cutting of steel cable as well brass rods as well as live trees and the typically softer stuff. It is amusing to see the light go on in peoples eyes when you show a sharp edge, then see it scraped off against the edge of a comparable blade. These days I simply "say it" to students and explain the use of shinogi and mune.
Most people (I imagine) do not fully realize the intent to kill, not play "sword to sword." Why would they" It is a learned behaviour. It is always fun to just "be there" with your blade, after or before they move eh? While they expected you to "sword fight." It is amazing how many people still fall for it though eh?
How to do......... how to do.......


your too funny Dan

******************************
Dan B
Double edged swords of the typical medieval type(Oh, I might add that the term "broadsword" is a relatively recent term and isn't used much by the people who study medieval swordplay. I challenge you to a find a reference to a broadsword as a specific sword type in a period text.) were double edged and symmetrical precisely because the edge was easily lost. Turn the sword over and it's like you've got a new one.

Dan H
yes, and to poke more at you :) they would have to. Not differentially hardening a blade, and HAVING to draw the whole mess back to the high 40s- to low50C they wouldn't hold that edge for long....you needed two!

And,I might add (back :) ) I used the generic term broadsword for the simple reason that you did when you started the discusion in the first place. We also did not specify country or era's. While we may discuss individual designs. Whether discussing a venetian Schiavona or a scottish version of the basket hilt, we are still talking a non differentially hardened blister or shear steel product drawn back so as not to shatter. Would you like to play with a 30" long blade with the whole thing at the 58C range?

I have stayed on point as to their inability to hold a fine edgen and the smiths obvious inability to solve the puzzle like other cultures did.
A specific point you have not directly addressed.

*******************************
Dan B
Reading period texts you will find these weapons could be used for draw cuts (the ol' coup de Jarnac springs to mind of course) as well as capable of slicing cuts, but they were best at hacking and chopping where, I agree, sharpness of edge is not as important as with a true cut. Now there's so many types of European sword out there that this is a gross oversimplification.

me
agreed, I am not now, nor ever was, arguing a case for a specific use. We agree that they hacked and maybe cut as well. Again, how this started, and my main point has been, that they will not support a very sharp edge. It defies the physical properties of the steel.

**********************
Dan B
Recently the Talhoffer Fechtbuch was published with English translation and commentary. Most of the sword work covered the long sword, and a study will show that the sword was used for a variety of cuts. The beautiful illustrations also show some limbs being lopped off, not something that is really possible (well maybe possible but not bloody likely) with a sword that won't cut. I think it's published under the name Medieval Combat or something similar.

Yes I have it. I also have a computer version. If you were going into a duel lets say and not combat wth armor. You may sharpen your soft steel sword to a "very" sharp edge, It will hold that edge against flesh. But even bone can deform an edge that soft. Inversely at a rockwell of 60-62C it oculd even chip it if the edge is too fine (I did that on a hog hip while proving out the theory that an edge must have sufficiant support with the body
Who cares though, in our scenerio the guys dead :)

*******************

Dan B
I think at this point that we should agree to disagree, or go find ourselves another expert to arbitrate. It is a pleasure discussing this with you, although I feel like I'm violating some e-budo rule by not dismissing your theories out of hand. Maybe we should call each other a few names just to keep our reputations intact.

Well. Steel is steel, metalurgy is a science, and rockwell ratings do not lie. What a eutectiod steel will do with a "very" sharp edge between 48-52 or 53 is not really debatable. The finer the edge, the weaker it will be.

******
******
ANNDD ........While I continue to at least try to address your points you still haven't addressed the issues of
edge "geometry" along with thier blade geometry and why specific swords look the way they do in conjunction with their rockwell ratings, steel type and designed use

As far as E-budo goes Dan
I'm afraid I am not too imaginative with insults, you would best me in no time.
its still a pleasure talking with you. And Earl has a wonderful mind and a mutual interest in this topic

Dan


[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-15-2001 at 10:12 PM]

Warwick
16th January 2001, 04:22
I'm sure all of you are familiar with some version of the story of the 47 samurai, in which those samurai avenged what they saw as the unjust death of their master etc etc. I'm not going to re-tell the story here. The weapons carried by 33 of those samurai are recorded. All carried two swords, one long and one short, although some of their wakizashi were long enough to be considered long swords. Of the 33 whose weapons were recorded, 13 carried no other weapons. 16 carried spears of various lengths, some quite short, some long, (as well as their swords); 3 carried bow and arrow (as well as their swords), and one carried a naginata (as well as his sword).

What is interesting about this is that it happened in 1702, long after the "Pax Tokugawa" began, and it was not a fight intended to take place on open ground, but in a built up area. And still, a large fraction carried spears.

Warwick Hooke

Failure Is Not An Option. It's bundled with your software.

Earl Hartman
16th January 2001, 04:36
Dan H:

How worried do you think someone would be about chipping their edge if they were fighting for their lives? I agree that if they had been trained to use the shinogi or the mune to block, parry, or ward, then they probably would do so in the heat of battle just by instinct. However, if I understand you correctly, Japanese swords take set bends quite easily, so I don't see how it would be possible to use the shinogi or the mune for blocks. Sliding parries, maybe, but not blocks. Structurally, I don't see how the sword could take it. Also, since I doubt very seriously that most of the people who used swords were expert in their use, I'm sure there were a lot of bent saw blades left after the dust settled.

Anyway, one of my iai teachers, addressing this very question said anyone who worries about ruining his edge in a fight is a fool who deserves to get killed. If you're alive, you can always repolish it. If you're dead, well, who cares if your edge is pristine?

"He's dead, Jim."

"Yeah, but just look at that edge. Not a mark on it!"

Dan Harden
16th January 2001, 05:15
I happen to agree with most of that Earl. However, the all important issue is whether or not it is necessary to use your edge to block an edge?

Agreed that it may or may not be avoidable all of the time, but more to the point "how do you train for the event?" To use an edge or not.
And blocking? I would not advocate being in a postion to neccesitate "a block" in the first place. There are so many other options available.

**************************

Earl
Anyway, one of my iai teachers, addressing this very question said anyone who worries about ruining his edge in a fight is a fool who deserves to get killed. If you're alive, you can always repolish it. If you're dead, well, who cares if your edge is pristine?

me
If you are concerened with killing your opponent, you are concerned with having the means to do so at your disposal. I cannot agree with the premis of planning, meaning Kata or techniques, that advocate the use of the ha to defend edge to edge.

As far as the use of the shinogi and Mune, the strength of their use is relative to the methodology of their use. The art I am familiar with would work with a live blade. That's all I can say. Have you tried and tested what you know?

Sorry, Your Iai teacher not withdstanding,training to not use an edge but to use other means to parry, slide parry, or block with the mune as opposed Someone who trains to do "otherwise" or someone who trains to "use" an edge, are different things all together.

Theoretically "Worrying" about the edge is a non issue..... I cannot imagine being "attached" to that. If it were to happen, it happens.
Even in the dojo. There is simply no time to think of that.

In the end, it's about training, whether you plan to use it or not.
Either way I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Happy new year Earl

Dan



[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-16-2001 at 06:19 AM]

FastEd
16th January 2001, 06:40
Originally posted by Dan Harden

To try to mix disparate arts in this way is a recipe for mediocrity in my opinion.

And Aikido , kendo and setei-iai do not function the same way that effective weapons do. Or atl least in the way that I and apparently dozens of others here have come to know them. I would find the concurrent study of any, or all of the above, to be self defeating.


Only dozens Dan..? My, the million or so people in the Kendo Federation must all be out to lunch, eh...

dbeaird
16th January 2001, 16:06
Originally posted by Dan Harden



Yes I have it. I also have a computer version. If you were going into a duel lets say and not combat wth armor. You may sharpen your soft steel sword to a "very" sharp edge, It will hold that edge against flesh. But even bone can deform an edge that soft. Inversely at a rockwell of 60-62C it oculd even chip it if the edge is too fine (I did that on a hog hip while proving out the theory that an edge must have sufficiant support with the body
Who cares though, in our scenerio the guys dead :)




Okay, I see where you're going finally. Cutting swords of any type or hardness are not very effective against people in plate armor. Chain is slightly different, but swords still aren't the weapon of choice. Swords are best used against the unarmed and unwashed masses of peasantry and when it comes to taking a shot at the other knight in shining armor, you use your lance, war hammer or mace. When fighting a man in plate harness, the suggested method was to use the long sword in a "half sword" manner to sort of poke at the holes in the armor. No swords were made to cut through steel armor, and your rockwell 62 edge would probably fare less well than the rockwell 52 edge from trying. At least the 52 edge could be banged straight and resharpened.

One last thought and I think I'll let this topic drop for now: Some European weapons did have hardened edges. Of course not all of them, but enough to make it clear that they did know the technique. I would expect it was either a special service sort of like having your car undercoated or perhaps a specialty of certain smiths. I do know that it was more common during the days of chain armor than in the days of plate which makes sense. I don't have any data on the hardnesses or methods I'm afraid. I'll see if I can find some though.

I appologize if you thought the hollywood swordfightin' comment was a personal dig. I was trying to make the point that swords are designed to cut things a hell of a lot softer than they are, and that edge retention isn't a big deal for a steel juggernaut carrying as many as ten implements of destruction, a couple of spares back in the tent and a few squires to go fetch a new one and resharpen the old one. We both know there's nothing that will mess up a sword faster than an edge on edge parry, regardless of the hardness of your edge.

Oh, and I wasn't the one who started using the term broad sword.

glad2bhere
16th January 2001, 19:18
Sorry, Folks. I need to back up to the sword/spear thing.

The tenor of one source I was reading seemed to support the idea that archeologists had a hard time getting the Japanese government to support investigation of mounds from the Yamon period. Apparently a contributing factor to this was evidence that the three most common items uncovered in these mounds were Korean pottery, mirrors and spear points. The conclusion by the author seemed to be that rather than support the contributions of Korean culture to the establishment of Japanese culture as we know it, the strategy instead was to let sleeping mounds lie. However, excavations seem to support the idea that the queen of battle was the spear, and swords were secondary and rapidly became associated only with the nobility and trained cadre rather than the common foot soldier (much as was the fashion to use the horse in battle as it was introduced by Korean emigres). The more I listen to people discuss this material, the more I find myself believing that martial tradition as we know it now in the 20th century is more a product of how we wish it had been, or how people lamenting the impact of firearms on the battlefield wish things had been (in the bad ol' days). I remember a comment made by an individual reflecting on the romance of the American Old West and sharing that only about a third of cowboys were White. His conclusion was that this little stat was often overlooked because most romantics could relate two-thirds of American cowboys being Black, or Hispanic to what they saw in the media. That same program also mentioned the travesty of believing that gun fights and gun fighters were anything like Gary Cooper in HIGH NOON.

I think this romance thing is hitting me hard today as I reflect on a documentary I saw last night on MS-NBC on violence in the penitentiary system. In 60 minutes of viewing I didn't see one stance, one spinning heel kick, and not a single Nunchuk. What I saw was blurs of motion in which people were pummeled and stabbed many times in scant seconds. Had I blinked I would have missed it--- literally.

I can't shake this growing feeling that somewhere between 1700 and 1900 somebody started selling a bill of goods to a people that deperately wanted to buy it up. They in turn seemed to have found willing customers here in the States.I don't mind a little romance now and then, but it would help us all to identify and report it as such, ne?

Best Wishes,

Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

16th January 2001, 22:21
Dang,

You guys have been busy!

I was going to explain that my question about spears & and sophistication had nothing to due with spearmanship or the forging methods of the blade. It was a comment on the shaft construction methods and inherent lateral weaknesses of all the Japanese pole arm designs. Dan and I have discussed this a little in the past but this thread has shot of in another interesting direction.....so.....

Thanks Dr Friday for your input and opinions. They are much appreciated!

Tobs

Scott
17th January 2001, 00:29
Bruce,

I have just finished reading your comments about the special on violence in the prison system. As a former Correctional Officer, I can confirm what you witnessed in the report. Among the inmate population the level of violence is startling. The most common modus opperandi is to stalk the victim, hit quick then drop the weapon and walk on as if taking a Sunday stroll. Variations can occur depending on the message that is being sent. If the attacker approaches from the front and the attack is weaponless the most common form of attack is the right-handed hay baler. The receiving inmate usually leans backward often loosing his balance. The fight usually ends up on the ground. When a weapon is involved and killing is the purpose, an upward stab from the front attempting to pierce the heart underneath the rib cage is preferred. Sometimes a razor is melted to a toothbrush or comb and a throat slice is attempted. Surprise is always the tactic used in an assault against inmates and staff. One of the most interesting things I have learned from my prison experiences is how durable the human body is, at least among the brutes of society. I have seen inmates with all kinds of various and sundry injuries some even with 9mm Glaser round wounds. Most of the tough ones just take these attacks and injuries as apart of prison life and it is not that big of deal. There are also attack specialists that train the beginners in tactics and target areas. Many prison gangs have their own codes of conduct and fitness requirements. Some have a blood in blood out pact as well. This means you must make a committed hit on someone to become a full member of the gang and if you try to leave the gang, the remaining members will attempt to take your life.

On an interesting note, I was talking to an inmate one day and he related to me a story about a fight he had witnessed at another prison on the exercise yard. It was between two Asian prison gangs. Hearing his story reminded me of the song, “Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting.” He said these Asians were performing all manner of flying kicks and acrobatics off the lunch benches. He said that all the other inmates just stood around and watched these guys fight each other until staff intervened with chemical spray and batons. It was apparently quite an exhibition. Most of the Asians were all little skinny guys near the 5-foot mark so I guess they could get away with all those acrobatics and flying kicks without doing too much damage.

Sincerely,

ben johanson
17th January 2001, 03:28
Bruce wrote,

"The tenor of one source I was reading seemed to support the idea that archeologists had a hard time getting the Japanese government to support investigation of mounds from the Yamon period. Apparently a contributing factor to this was evidence that the three most common items uncovered in these mounds were Korean pottery, mirrors and spear points."

"However, excavations seem to support the idea that the queen of battle was the spear..."

This deals with the "Yamon" (I'm assuming you either mean Jomon or Yamato?) period, which was way before the martial traditions of Japan, indeed even before the samurai caste itself, developed. The era in question in this discussion has mostly been the Sengoku period, which was much much later. I fail to see how the conclusion based on very early evidence from the "Yamon" (Jomon? Yamato?) period that the spear was the "queen of the battlefield" is applicable to the much later 16th century (unless you're talking about excavations of Sengoku period sites, which I don't think you are).

Besides, the biggest contribution from the mainland to the establishment of Japanese culture, in almost every area, was undeniably made by the Chinese in the Yamato, Nara and Heian periods I believe. True, the lines of cultural exchange between Japan and China may have passed through Korea, but the mainland source was, for the most part, China, not Korea. I'm not sure, but I would guess that, in light of this extensive contribution from China, any influence on Japan directly from Korea is almost negligable, if not nonexistent.

Bruce:
"The conclusion by the author seemed to be that rather than support the contributions of Korean culture to the establishment of Japanese culture as we know it, the strategy instead was to let sleeping mounds lie."

I don't see how the existence of Korean-made objects in Japanese mounds of about 1,500 to 2,000 years ago constitutes a significant cultural contribution when compared to the influence of China on Japan. But if I'm totally off base here, please enlighten me.

glad2bhere
17th January 2001, 06:02
Dear Ben:

"...in almost every area, was undeniably made by the Chinese in the Yamato, Nara and Heian periods I believe. True, the lines of cultural exchange between Japan and China may have passed through Korea, but the mainland source was, for the most part, China, not Korea. I'm not sure, but I would guess that, in light of this extensive contribution from China, any influence on Japan directly from Korea is almost negligable, if not nonexistent....
...I don't see how the existence of Korean-made objects in Japanese mounds of about 1,500 to 2,000 years ago constitutes a significant cultural contribution when compared to the influence of China on Japan. But if I'm totally off base here, please enlighten me...."
__________________
Ben Johanson

Yes, you are totally off-base. The LoLang colony which is documented as a primary trading location and point of exchange was located in Korea. Metalugical studies seem to support the transfer of forging and weapons technology from Korea to Japan. The immigration of Korean ancestry from Paekche to the Japanese islands including their martial traditions are also documented.Nor would you want to discount the introduction of Buddhist thought attributed to Korean rather than Chinese exchange. We are not talking 1500 to 2000 years ago. Rather these were developments during the Three Kingdom period (C 400 to 700 AD). As far as I am able to determine the single greatest contribution from the Chinese culture was the influence of Tang dynasty Confucianism which could only be approximated rather than copied owing to the interesting governmental form developed in Japan at the time.

I wouldn't surrender my position though, were I you. The view that Japan owes little to its continental cousins across the Sea of Japan has been popular for quite a while. Ask any good ultra-nationalist worth his salt and they will tell you that Japan did it all-- by themselves- with no in-put from anyone.

Best Wishes,

Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

ben johanson
17th January 2001, 19:40
Bruce,

No, I don't think I was TOTALLY off base at all. What I said was that, although the lines of cultural exchange passed through Korea and then to Japan, there was little or no direct influence of the former on the latter (emphasize direct). All Buddhist doctine that came to Japan from the mainland was Chinese (or, going back even further in time, Indian) in origin. Yes, the religion was passed on by the King of Paikche to the Japanese court in about the year 552, but the major reason that Buddhism spread to Korea and then to Japan is because of the favour which it enjoyed under the rulers of the Wei and Liang dynasties of China. If not for China, the arrival of Buddhism in Japan may have been delayed for centuries (if it ever would have arrived at all), totally altering the course of Japanese history. Korea simply acted as the middleman between the two countries, not as a direct source for cultural exchange.

"We are not talking 1500 to 2000 years ago. Rather these were developments during the Three Kingdom period (C 400 to 700 AD)."

500 AD, which is included in the Three Kingdoms period, was exactly 1,500 years ago. By the way, is the term "Yamon" a Korean word? Because there is no period in Japanese history known by that name. Just curious.

"...the single greatest contribution from the Chinese culture was the influence of Tang dynasty Confucianism which could only be approximated rather than copied owing to the interesting governmental form developed in Japan at the time."

Actually, it ran deeper than that. The Japanese, in the 7th century adopted the T'ang Chinese system of land tenure and taxation with very little change (the Reform Edict of 646). It was only later, through experience, that the refomers realized they followed the T'ang system too closely and that the Japanese situation was too different from that of China for a wholesale adoption of the latter's system of government. This episode in Japanese history (the adoption of Chinese ideas of government) was absolutely integral to the later developement of a native system, for indeed, without it, Japan would not be what it is today.

(I could go on, but I'll end it here.)

My overall point was that, although Korea's position as the middleman between China and Japan was essential for the transmission of ideas and doctrine from the former to the latter, any DIRECT contribution to Japanese thought Korea may have had (if she had any at all) pales in comparison and significance to the influence of China on Japan.

By the way:
"I wouldn't surrender my position though, were I you. The view that Japan owes little to its continental cousins across the Sea of Japan has been popular for quite a while. Ask any good ultra-nationalist worth his salt and they will tell you that Japan did it all-- by themselves- with no in-put from anyone."

This is not my view at all and I think both my previous post and this one prove that.


Regards,
Ben Johanson

glad2bhere
17th January 2001, 20:44
Dear Ben:

This really isn't rocket science, and we are not discussing some obscure historical backwater. The choice is really very simple. Either you give credence to the contribtuions of the Korean culture for their influence on the development of of Japanese culture and martial tradition or you don't. Even the quote that you used in your response states that "...reformers realized that they followed the Tang system too closely and the Japanese situation was too different for a wholesale adoption..." Isn't that what I said? My sense is that your investment in "proving" yourself right may make it difficult for you to participate in an even-handed exchange of information to our mutual benefit. From the position at which I find myself I have a genuine envy to those sword people who seemed have been able to exchange information and views without getting caught-up. For myself I have been through these doorways and over this information way too many times to attempt to moderate what are apparently cherished points of view.

Your position, and welcome to it.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

ben johanson
18th January 2001, 03:48
Bruce,

"This really isn't rocket science, and we are not discussing some obscure historical backwater. The choice is really very simple. Either you give credence to the contribtuions of the Korean culture for their influence on the development of of Japanese culture and martial tradition or you don't."

Tell me exactly what in history is this cut and dry? Nothing I know of. Ideas should be based on evidence and analysis of data, and historical ideas are no exception. All I'm doing here is presenting evidence to support my ideas. I hoped you would respond with further evidence to support your claim, hence continuing what could be a very lively and interesting debate, but instead you chose to break from the discussion and to start launching personal attacks. I really think this is unwarrented.

""...reformers realized that they followed the Tang system too closely and the Japanese situation was too different for a wholesale adoption..." Isn't that what I said?"

Yes that's what you said, but you left out the most important part of the above quote, which stated that, originally, the Japanese adopted the Chinese system of government without changing it significantly. Only later did they adapt it to the Japanese situation. I was not really arguing with you on this point, I was simply expanding on what you originally stated to illustrate the importance of the Chinese influence on Japanese government. Like I said, the situation ran deeper than you made it appear.

"My sense is that your investment in "proving" yourself right may make it difficult for you to participate in an even-handed exchange of information to our mutual benefit."

I really resent this comment. An "even-headed exchange" was exactly what I was trying to achieve with my posts by stating my theory/opinion and supporting it with evidence from a reputable source. I am not so much concerned with "proving" myself right, but with, like you said, exchanging information for our mutual benefit. Instead of attacking me, why don't you continue this great discussion by proving me wrong with evidence of your own? That's how debates are conducted-with each side presenting evidence to support their conclusions, not by attacking each other.

"For myself I have been through these doorways and over this information way too many times to attempt to moderate what are apparently cherished points of view."

I do not have a "cherished" point of view on this. I, just like anyone else on e-budo, am searching for information. I have certain views on things based on what I've read and studied. Any corrections or additions to my knowledge base are totally welcome as long as they are supported with evidence or accompanied by a reference to a source. It seems to me that you are the one with the "cherished point of view" that you can't let go of even in the face of strong opposition and that you also don't seem to be able or willing to prove with supporting evidence.

Dan Harden
18th January 2001, 04:11
Earl Writes

Anyway, something occurred to me: it seems to me that the definition of sharp should be considered in a relative context. Let us assume, as is likely, that European weapons were never as sharp, in an absolute sense, as Japanese ones. However, there are many European period illustrations showing people using swords to cleave helms and skulls and lop off limbs. Even allowing for poetic license, I think that it is safe to assume that there is some truth to these illustrations and that swords had edges that could cut things.

For example, in the late 14th century, a battle took place at Visby on the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea. (I think its Gotland, anyway. Can't remember if it's Danish or Swedish, though). The dead were hastily buried in mass graves, some still in their armor. The excavation of these graves gave researchers much insight into the armor and weapons of the period.

One thing they found was a preponderance of bladed-weapon wounds in the lower legs and at the junction of the neck and shoulder, indicating that these were favorite targets. Some bodies had one or both of their legs entirely lopped off, perhaps by two-handed swords (could have been glaives, who knows).

Anyway, a blade is as sharp/strong as what it is up against. A European weapon may not be able to keep its edge against a harder blade (Japanese, Viking, Wootz, or other) but would probably have been servicable against a weapon with similar limitations; that is, within its context, and against the weapons and armor it was designed to face, it would have been "sharp".
***********************
This is actually an interesting topic Earl.
The European weapons were not routinely differentially tempered. There are no recorded methods that they used to do this that I am aware of, nor did the steel they used exhibit any sort variance in carbon between the edge and the body. This would obfuscate the contention of a differential tempering process.

1. If we presume this was true in the majority of cases, then at what point did the ultimate yield of the weapon , and it's limitations, dictate technique? And..............

2. Was the quality of the weapon a trade off for the avaliable technological limitations? Or, did the techniques drive the designers to "keep up," as was the supposed recorded case of the Japanese Ken?<

3. Another topic is the discussion of edge geometry. A distinction I appear to be the only one talking about. People seem to talk about Blade geometry (a function of balance and a contributory factor in ultimate yield) but have not discussed the types of edge geometry as a design parameter and indicator of intended use.

I find the whole discussion rather intriguing.
Did
Form (techniques)
follow function (functional limitaion of the steels used)

We have probably put everyone but us to sleep with all of this

Dan

[Edited by Dan Harden on 01-17-2001 at 10:28 PM]

Brently Keen
18th January 2001, 07:28
I'm still awake Dan, it's been an informative thread. I haven't participated in this discussion much simply because edge geometry, blade steels and such are not really my areas of expertise. I'll defer to those of you who know what you're talking about.

As far as whether form follows function or vice versa doesn't it go both ways to some extent? I mean certain techniques obviously developed as solutions to the limitations of the tools being used, but there are also cases where the tools determined the techniques, or the tools rather were developed as solutions that would facilitate certain technical advantages. Two examples of the latter might be the kuda yari of Owari Kan-ryu, and the longer tsuka's favored by some kenjutsu styles.

Brently Keen

Kolschey
18th January 2001, 11:49
Originally posted by Dan Harden






We have probably put everyone but us to sleep with all of this

Dan



Definitely not! The sword forum continues to be a source of some of the most interesting and substantial discussion. Please keep going!

glad2bhere
18th January 2001, 15:14
Dear Ben:

Frankly, I am really not very concerned with whether you resent my comments or not. I am not in the habit of providing either a vitae or a bib with my posts, nor citations for each declarative statement I make. Apparently you have chosen to examine Japanese culture from only one side of the Sea of Japan. As I say, your position and welcome to it. Given my apparent poverty of information, and your apparent investment in being "proved" right or wrong, perhaps you would be better served taking up your intellectual joust with someone who is so inclined. You may consider this my final word on the subject.

Best Wishes,
Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

ben johanson
18th January 2001, 19:36
Bruce,

And here is my final word...

You obviously had no intention of discussing this issue from the getgo, because as soon as you encountered a strong argument against your views you folded and started attacking me instead of continuing the discussion. And since you seem to have no interest in actually reading my posts and understanding the point I'm trying to convey, I'll only say one last thing: e-budo is a discussion forum. If you have no desire to discuss a topic, then DON'T BRING IT UP!

Earl Hartman
18th January 2001, 19:51
Dan:

I am still wide awake, Dan. Give us all you've got on edge geometries, their relationship to available sword materials and forging methods and how you think the whole mix dictated technique. I know that swordsmanship is supposed to be "spiritual", but when it comes to cutting something, you gotta have science, even if it comes from practical experience and not the lab.

glad2bhere
18th January 2001, 21:30
"...Sorry, Folks. I need to back up to the sword/spear thing...."

About two pages back I asked after those comments regarding the role of spears relative sword use and would still like to pursue this. The spear tips exhumed in Japan were uniformly iron as produced in Korea but it doesn't seem that anyone has pursued the metalurgy on this. Is this just a case of the sword bumping the spear out of the limelight? :-) I also remember citing a book on AIkido and Chinese weapons during an excellent discussion that started with commentary on stainless steel swords (I still have the copy I ran off- great material) but I don't know that anyone responded to that either.

I also am intrigued by the references to blunt trauma in battle reports. As many of you are aware use of stone swords and knives are well recorded in Korean history and I don't think this was a function of their razor edges. (What occurs to me is the repeated patterns in which battle implements for inflicting blunt trauma seem to be the weapon of choice for cultures in which the taking of hostages exceeded the need to kill an opponent out-right, but thats another issue.) Referencing that form-after-function comment made earlier, I wouldn't mind hearing opinions on at what point in development cleaving a head or severing a leg exceeds simply bursting the skull or fracturing a femur.

Where I am taking this is that there is also the matter of armour as well and early reports indicate that emigres to Japan (c 500 AD) wore "iron armour" which leaves me wondering how European development went to metal plate and Japanese armour the other direction. As far as I can see the developement of the sword simply went from a dull club to a steel razor in both cultures, yes?

Best Wishes,

Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

Karl Friday
18th January 2001, 23:03
Originally posted by glad2bhere

Where I am taking this is that there is also the matter of armour as well and early reports indicate that emigres to Japan (c 500 AD) wore "iron armour" which leaves me wondering how European development went to metal plate and Japanese armour the other direction. As far as I can see the developement of the sword simply went from a dull club to a steel razor in both cultures, yes?

The earliest armors introduced into Japan (the keiko, or kakeyoroi that are believed to be the direct ancestor of the samurai's oyoroi) were lamellar and were *probably* composed of mostly iron lamellae--I say "probably" because we know about the earliest of these armors mostly from haniwa figurines, rather than actual surviving samples. But some soldiers of the kofun (tomb) period used a plate armor cuirass, called a tanko or mijikayoroi, that is believed to be a native development. Tanko were made of either leather or iron. Later samurai armors were made up of combinations of iron and leather lamallae.

The reason why the Japanese never developed plate armor is most likely that they simply didn't need it. Plate armor was reintroduced into medieval Europe as an improvement on chain mail (which among other things was vulnerable to arrows and crossbow bolts). But plate would have offered the Japanese very little--if any--improvement over the lamellar designs they had been using since prehistoric times. In fact, there are a lot of advantages to lamellar armor over plate, including the better strength-to-weight ratio and ease of repair of the lamellar type.

On the issue of sword sharpness: Kondo Yoshikazu, who is probably the leading authority on weapons history in Japan today, is quite adament that the razor sharpness of Japanese swords is a modern development adopted for swords kept for display as art objects. Swords meant for actual combat, he maintains, were never kept keenly sharp, because that kind of sharpening was of little practical value, made the edge prone to breaking and wore the sword out too fast. (We used to say the same thing about ski edges back when I used to do that kind of work: racers would often file their edges razor sharp, but that resulted in the need to re-sharpen them after almost every use, and wore the skis out very quickly; when we sharpened skis for regular recreational use, we never filed them past a 90 degree angle.)

Earl Hartman
18th January 2001, 23:30
Dr. Friday:

Your comments about the fact that actual combat swords were not kept "razor sharp" as many assume, since this would render the edge too delicate for actual use seem to me to have a direct bearing on the subject of a thread I started, "Edge To Edge - Yes or No?". As a practitioner of Kashima Shin Ryu, I would greatly appreciate your views on this subject.

glad2bhere
19th January 2001, 01:47
Dear Mr. Friday:

Eveything you say makes perfect sense when bumping the use of the sword against (no pun intended) the development of of the Japanese armour. Now moving back towards the use of the spear rather than the sword as the mainstay of battle. Can you see anything there that would have disposed the Japanese towards the kind of armour they developed rather than stay with whatever came across from the continent. The best I can come up with is the simple lack of sufficient quantities of iron to support continued use or manufacture, but that seems a bit too simplistic.

Thanks for your time,

Bruce

Dan Harden
18th February 2002, 05:08
Gentlemen

Been mucking through the archives for a friend as I said. Found this beauty

Dan

Risto R
30th June 2005, 10:38
Hello everyone!

I know this is a very old thread, but it has very good content and has been put up as "sticky", albeit I think it's a little dated. Therefore I thought it would be good that some issues that were not considered here would be clarified. I don't know if these are already in other topics but as this is "sticky" I think they should be here too.

As I said this is quite an old thread, so it is possible that Mr. Harden has already changed his opinions as I think some of them are dated, all respect to his knowledge on everything on the subject.

I got the impression that Mr. Harden has a stereotype of european swords as having thick blade geometry to support the "dull" and "soft" edge. The thing is that blade geometry varied drastically during the middleages. There were a lot of very flat geometries designed for cutting flesh and light armor (leather, canvas) and thicker geometries to support the blade when thrusting through heavier armour (ie. maille). And everything between. The thicker geometries started becoming more popular when the thrust was favored to go through maille, although flatter geometries survived parallel to them. The shape of the blade also varied greatly, a good overview can be seen here:

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_properties.html

I do believe Mr. Harden is fully aware of these points. :)

The next thing is the sharpness issue. And this is where we disagree. I think that blade geometry is far more important than the actual sharpness of the edge when regarding cutting ability. This is of course not true with really dull blades (ie .5mm edge diameter). And this leads to the fact that maintaining razor sharpness with extreme hardness is not that necesseary. And I think that 45-55 HRC is quite enough for a sword. Heck, some cheapo woodcarving knives fare quite well being soft (yeah, you have to re-sharpen more often), so why not swords which oppose soft flesh (and okay, some quite hard bone). Yes, I understand that knives and swords have totally different characteristic needs, but you get the point.

This is coming from a total armchair sword enthusiast, although I do some western sword arts.

PS. Euro swords _can_ cut and you can even cut with an axe with a proper blade with proper technique.

Michael Powell
19th February 2006, 07:47
[FONT=Palatino Linotype][B][I][SIZE=2]
The traditional Japanese man of war was a mounted archer and from the start though he wore a Tachi Sword it had in fact been considered a backup weapon. The problem was that this proved none too effective against the many Chinese and Korean invasions which sent the Nihonji back to the drawing board. The result was Boshido, the way of flower viewing.

The Japanese realized that they were smaller in stature, and disproportionately near-sighted, their inclination to be individualist made regimentation difficult and and their want of isolation made them slow er in technocracy.

These points are the hallmarks of Boshido. Instead of immediately engaging an invader they would wait to see how the enemy deployed and focus on ciphering a weakness. They would attack at night, and take advantage on their tight net living quarters to creat mazes , wells and gated or fenced in housing and tiney alley-ways. E>go positions were smaller numbers were more practical and knowledge of the location was critical to mustering or excaping. Women learned Naginata which could be used for small scale crowd control sense women bind well and cooperate better. All of these factors made the long sword a heavenly gift and a source of national pride.

These same factors played their own part in the civil wars because in order to take posession of towns and villages they had to be cleared and checked which is primarily the work of the swordsmen.

The misconception on this subject is the notion that Samuri is necessarily synonimus with warrior, when in fact samuri is related to samui or servent This includes postmen, road and bridge engineers, sanation workers and the usual lot of municipal workers and castle attendants.

I mean to suggest that many great swordsman were not Samuri at all. Many were So Hei and Mu So: Radical Monks and Buddhist Activist who often clashed with local lords and even the shoguns.

As for the Romantic era of the sword: this didn't occure until the two fold effect of Unification< and the new style Katana. The former lead to many attempted coups, raids on revolutionaries, intrigues and power plays and the masses of diseffected Ronin who often became indifferent to life and death shouting Devine Retrobution at the slightest offenceand again there were many wanna be bogeisha:the comparative to the american gunslinger trying to make a quick name for himself. The Katana which was not popular until the late 1500s was more comfortable to wear and evolved many new tricks to drawing an essential for the hired assaign and so essential for those intent to bring them to justice.

One thing that time has not eraced is that swordsmanship is not a path in itself but even in the early Chu'an period or even Hindii and Buddhist fatherlands the sworh is known as part of a true path to enlightenment, hence theclassic argument jujitsu or Do?

Brian Owens
19th February 2006, 14:09
Is it April Fools Day already? If not, then I don't understand the purpose of the above post.

There are so many incorrect statements, and racist and sexist comments, that I can't even begin to express my contempt for the post. (And don't even get me started on the grammar and spelling.)

Michael Powell
20th February 2006, 02:30
[B][I]
I have been trying to post this for two days and somehow have been blocked!

What most of you have missed is a full history of Bushido. The origional Japanese man of war was a Mounted Archer who did in fact carry a Tachi-To as a backup but the successful invasions by the Chinese and Koreans forced them to rethink the whole idea of warfare and deployment.

The theory went that Japanese men were inclined to be individualistic and hence regimentatio and formation drills were considered useless. they were more inclined to be nearsighted and so as in many movies they began to prefer night fighting. Smaller and even per man lighter in weight, infighting with a long sword of superior quality became natural,and this could be enhanced by the semi-gorrila approach of fighting within the confines of tight-net villages and maze-like mansions with wells,bridges, gates and fences that could easily loose the unfamiliar.

This was all based on Boshido which comes from the idea of allowing the enemy to land and deploy and merely observe as if Flower Viewing, hence Boshido. Having observed they could then probe true weaknesses without having to compete in set peice battles unawear of what war machines they might be confronted with. Hence the first heyday of the longsword.

During their Civil War Era, while the Longsword cannot be said to have ruled the feild, there was still the problem of clearing Villages, Castles and Mansionsand here again the Longsword ruled , espically sense resistance often continued untill it was clear that the Lord had been killed or committed seppaku.

The Romantic heyday of the sword came after unification and hence had little to do with the Battlefeild. Unification led to Samuri Pink Slips and strife for the disaffectioned. It also led the Katana & to many intrigues, attempted coupes, revenge murders, top dog duels for prestigue and armed social advocates, many who were Buddhist Priests and Monks.

On the latter point, note also that many martial arts schools were associated with monistaries and temples. This is all the more to be noted because the sword is considered part of a true path to Enlightenment throughout Asia and coupled with the Pen or Brush in Japan. Ad classic Literature and Philosophy and you have the true gentleman.

Also East or West the noble duel is with swords because attack and defence are equal, height or weight, even relative vision is not an issue. The marriage of mind, body and spirit usually rule. And again the classic question Do or Jitsu, Buddhist and Toaist way or path or is it an aesthetic art.

The other point to note here is that Samuri is a relatively modern term derived from the word for servant. Many swordsmen were not municipal and other government employees. They range from Kabuki-Mono and Bo-geisha to So Hei & Mu So.

Michael Powell
20th February 2006, 02:42
[FONT=Palatino Linotype]
ister Owens I can assure you that everything that I have written is as I have studied and learned from Japanese experts and scholars, if you find racism in that, then that is your delusion, not mine!

As for spelling; you may well spell in English better than I, by contemporary standards, but you are no match pen or sword!

Brian Owens
20th February 2006, 03:53
...you are no match pen or sword!
On what do you base that statement? Have we ever crossed swords?

As for your "expert" knowledge of history, your assertion that some samurai were sanitation workers doesn't hold water. Sanitation workers, tanners, undertakers, etc. were assigned from the hinin, the "non-men," who fell outside the caste structure, because such work was considered "unclean."