I don't understand what this means. Could you please explain it? Are you saying that what bushi did with their swords during the time that they actually used them as weapons has no relevance to modern sword techniques?Originally posted by James Williams
Whether or not a samurai several hundred years ago could do this or that has only minor relevance to whether or not that would work for us. [/B]
I don't believe that anyone in this thread advocates that the best way to stop an enemy's sword is to block it forcefully with the edge. Nor do I believe that anyone is advocating that the best way to fight is to constantly block the enemy's blows forcefully, that is, to just stand toe to toe and hack it out. Everyone seems to agree that the best way is to either avoid receiving the enemy's cut in the first place or to respond in such a way that one uses one's sword and body positioning to deflect/redirect/ward/parry the enemy's blade so that one's own blade receives as little of the energy of the enemy's blow as possible.
The only question is, if by "blocking" one means "to stop the enemy's blow cold with one's own weapon", what is the best way to do this should it be necessary? No one is suggesting that such a technique is optimal, only that if one must do it, how would it best be done?
I agree that if one was a good enough swordsman, one would be confronted with this possibility relatively rarely. However, a fight to the death is a fight to the death, and one never knows what might happen in extremis. Maybe the other guy is way better than you and it's all you can do to keep him off you. Who knows? One must be prepared for all possibilities and have a weapon, ideally, upon which one can rely in such a situation. Many people posting here seem to be rephrasing various versions of "the Japanese sword was not designed to do that" or "the edge couldn't take the punishment", essentially saying that a Japanese sword will suffer catastrophic failure if the edges clash.
If the Japanese sword will fail so readily in a situation which probably occurred quite often, regardless of the best intentions of the swordsman, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that it is an inferior weapon. I just cannot believe that smiths kept on making blades with a warning sticker that said "Danger: May shatter if you strike the enemy's sword edge to edge. This situation not covered by manufaturer's warranty. Manufacturer not responsible for consequences of misuse. Always follow instructions in the user's manual" and didn't stop to think about how to correct the siutation.
Dan mentioned a European sword from the Battle of Agincourt that was so well spring-tempered that he could bend it over his knee to a 60 degree angle and watch it spring back to its original shape after the pressure was released. Maybe it would never be as sharp as a katana. Maybe it was not as pretty. But the thing is not going to break and leave you defenseless just because you're not an expert swordsman.
PS:
Dan, you mentoned that some smiths in Japan speculate that Masamune did not use a soft core in his swords or make use of the kobuse method or other elaborate forging methods. Is not Masamune considered to be one of the best, if not the best, smiths that Japan has ever produced? Hmmmmmm.....