Likes Likes:  0
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 112

Thread: Blocking with katana

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    685
    Likes (received)
    111

    Default

    James and Dan -

    Thank you for the info that is based on your experience with actual impact. The only experience I have even slightly close to that which you describe is a crazy period in one dojo where, at the instructor's behest (and our idiotic acquiesence), we did our kata with relatively hard impact (say about 1/3 force), using those cheap pot-metal sword replicas. All the replicas quickly became saws, and the single practice ended within a 1/2 hour when one was hit on the shinogi and snapped, one piece nearly spearing someone on the other end of the dojo. And that, thank God, allowed a return to bokken, and the much more acceptable, under the circumstances, risk of cracked knuckles and other broken bones. BTW, I'm not using this as evidence regarding nihonto and shinogi uke - even I know that pot metal aint folded steel - it's just a lead in to wondering how impossible it would be to do "stress tests" with two people doing kata or even one move with impact at full force. A sword blade helicoptering across the room or a chip lodging in someone's eye would be a high price to pay in proving once and for all how swords perform in the kind of impact. and then, of course, you'd have to repeat it lots of times to get any reliable data. Much less the possibility that one really did attack with integrity and the other person couldn't block - whoops, I mean parry. Anyway, great discussion. I always look forward to reading what you guys have to say about an instrument I love to swing, but know all too little about in terms of its structure and capabilities.

    With respect

    Ellis

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    135
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Ellis,

    One point I did forget to bring up, if people want to do some live blade on blade, which I do not recommend, is that you get little pieces of steel that can come off when you make contact. Most blocks therefore entail a slight averting of the eyes so that there is not a direct line of flight. Don Angier sensei taught me this technique a long time ago and it served me well is some testing where i had a small piece of metal stick in the side of my head instead of in my eye.
    James Willliams
    Kaicho
    Nami ryu

  3. #78
    Marc Renouf Guest

    Default A product of circumstance

    This has been a really interesting thread. Kudos to all who have participated.

    While I can't really add much to the discussion from the practical experiment side (I've never subjected a sword to those kinds of punishment), I can offer some insight to Earl Hartman's question as to why Japanese smiths didn't design a better weapon.

    The answer of course, is that like everything else, the katana was a product of its environment. People are quick to point out that European battlefield weapons were very robust, made of springlike steel, and unlikely to shatter. They are less quick to point out that compared to the Sengoku Jidai samurai, the typical Teutonic Knight was armored like a tank. They are also less quick to point out that most European swords didn't really have much of an edge, and there's mounting evidence that most casualties from these kinds of weapons were actually due to blunt force trauma or internal bleeding caused by compound fractures of major bones.

    Weapons and armor are developed for good reasons, and those reasons are as many and varied as the cultures that spawn them. European smiths very early on developed extremely sophisticated armor, and the counter-response was to develop weapons that were capable of circumventing and surviving heavy blows against that armor. The Japanese, on the other hand, used much lighter forces. Their armor was much less protective and tended to be made of lighter (but weaker) materials. Their weapons aren't designed to batter through 10-gauge steel. They are designed to lay the (relatively exposed) femoral or brachial artery wide open. The best way to do that is with a (relatively) light, quick weapon that has an exceedingly sharp edge.

    But even armor development happens for different reasons. Japanese horses tend to be fairly small. They are hardy and sure-footed, but not as strong. Central Europe, on the other hand, is home to some truly massive varieties of horse (a la the Percheron), that can easily carry a heavily armored man. Japanese warriors were noted for mounted archery. European warriors were noted for the use of the lance. Even something as simple as when the stirrup was first discovered in these different societies can have strong ramifications on military development.

    Before we are too quick to make comparisons between weapons of various cultures, we need to look at the big picture, look at how wars were fought in those cultures, and how those weapons developed in response to armor, tactics, availability of materials, outside influences, and a host of other factors. To do anything less is to compare apples to oranges.

    Finally, I'd like to make a note about the assertion that modern materials and methods always make a better end product. Say what you want about 440 stainless, but the finished product that is a sword is as much a product of the process as it is of the materials. My wife is a metallurgist, so I hear about this kind of stuff all the time. Yes, modern forging methods can make some very hard, very strong steels. But part of the strength of a katana made by traditional methods arises from the fusing of metals of different hardnesses. Differences in quench time, grain size, inclusions, and impurities can cause vastly different properties between the individual types of steel. If you want a sharp edge, the best way to get that is with a very hard steel. But hard steels are brittle, and will shatter easily. Similarly, if you're not as concerned about your edge but want something more robust, use a softer, more ductile steel. It may deform, but is less likely to fracture.

    The beauty of the traditionally-forged katana is that it combines these two principles. The body of the sword is a steel that's far more ductile than the steel that comprises the edge. So you get a sharp edge, but if anything happens (edge-to-edge block), you'll lose a chip out of the edge. But you don't have to worry as much about shattering the entire sword. Further, the layering process yields a sword that is actually less likely to snap in two because no single grain boundary passes all the way through the body of the sword. You may crack individual layers (which will weaken the sword), but the sword as a whole is more likely to stay intact.

    Most modern swords are mass-produced. They are stamped, rolled, and machined. Sure, the grade of steel may be higher, but that steel is homogenous. To imply that this yields a "better" weapon than a hand-forged blade made of differing qualities of steel is to imply that your garden variety gunto is a better weapon than a Masamune katana. I.e., it's patently ridiculous.

    Even smiths who hand-make swords may be largely unaware of the subtleties behind traditional swordsmithing methods. I went to a Highland Festival once where a gentleman was selling suspiciously katana-like swords. When asked about them, he replied proudly that they were made of a single piece of hand-forged 440 stainless, and that they were stronger than original katanas. Idiot. I've seen similar swords snap under what I would consider less than strenuous conditions, and I wouldn't try tameshigiri with one to save my life. Just because it's curved and only sharp on one edge, does not mean it's a katana.

  4. #79
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Marc

    Thank you for contributing. But before you make statements like
    "People are quick to point out that.."
    And
    "They are also less quick to point out that most European swords didn't really have much of an edge...."
    I suggest you go back and read the "Stainless steel" and "edge to edge" threads as well as the other armor threads in the archives. We covered these topics in much greater detail and Earl was a major contributor there as well. You will find some VERY detailed discussions on metallurgy as well. Like many modern smiths I have extensive experience with metallurgy, and testing. Not to put too fine a point on it- but your example of 440 stainless whether it be A,B,or C sort of detracts from your overall point. Regardless of the method it is unwise to consider a sword from that steel. Even one that could be hand forged and differentially tempered from one of us who can do the job.
    There are some excellent comparative discussions on European and Asian armors as well.

    Just thought I would add that it is good to review the archives to see who's who. That way you can offer these same opinions as a continuation of a given thread and move that thread forward to spawn further discussion. You will probably find like minded people.

    Earl sits at home chained to the computer with a glass of Pink Zinfendel wine cooler in his hand waiting for talk on arms and armors
    He has to keep wiping the saliva off the keyboard when someone mentions the comparative attributes of European weaponry and actually compliments them.

    Good points all around Marc.

    Cheers
    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Harden; 16th March 2002 at 04:52.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    135
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Dan,

    You are getting entirely to easy to get along with.

    James
    James Willliams
    Kaicho
    Nami ryu

  6. #81
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Dan,

    You are getting entirely to easy to get along with.

    James

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

    Ya wiseguy
    Actually there are many who know me or study with me who post here. They tell me my writing style is didactic, demonstrative and dry- (and that was the good stuff)-and does not reflect my natural good humor (hey! They said it). To that end I am being more careful.
    But lets not get me started on Aiki-bunnies or what some people call Martial Arts these days…..

    Cheers
    Dan

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Palo Alto, Ca, USA
    Posts
    1,324
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Originally posted by Dan Harden
    My contention is that the sword will not FAIL from edge to edge-the edge will be chipped or scraped off. And due to the excellent design of the Japanese sword that chip will be limited.
    Dan:

    As far as I am concerned, this is the end of the discussion. My sole contention throughout this thread has been NOT that edge-to-edge blocking (or parrying, or deflecting, or whatever you want to call it) is desirable, it has been ONLY that the sword will survive it and that if it does not it is an inferior weapon. I believe that your statement supports that contention and that we can assume that a PROPERLY MADE Japanese sword will survive whatever edge to edge contact that may occur in the heat of battle. It will be damaged, but the damage will not be fatal.

    That being said, I believe the story that Toby tells of the destruction of a shinken due to a mistake in a kata by an inexperienced student who was nervous about being filmed. But that just begs the question: would not an inexperienced person be just that much more nervous if it were a real battle? My gut tells me that what Ellis says must be true: that in the stress of battle, the fine motor control will go out the window and that no one will have time to worry about his sword when his life is on the line. We would all like to imagine that a "sword saint" would be able to do whatever he wanted with perfect results, but how many such people really existed? The vast majority of swords were undoubtedly handled by some pretty terrified people and certainly must have been designed with that in mind. The destroyed shinken may have been very beautiful, and it is too bad that it was ruined, but how good a sword could it have been if a simple mistake like that will destroy it?

    Regarding the differences between European and Japanese weapons and armor, the reasons for the differences in the way weapons and armor developed are in themselves a whole?@field of study, and I do not pretend to be an expert. However, while horses were stronger in Europe and the European knight developed tactics based on the heavy cavalry charge, as opposed to relying on mounted archery, Mr. Renouf is entirely incorrect in intimating that the European knight went into battle encased from head to foot in 10 gauge steel and that such armor was a cosntant throughout the Middle ages. As I have stated before, at the acme of its development a typical full plate harness of Italian armor of the mid 15th century weighed only about 45 pounds or so, excluding the arming jacket (which was provided with mail for the gaps in the plates) and the helmet. The ponderously heavy and restrictive harnesses of plate armor which one sees in many museums are tournament armor, which could be made excessively protective and restrict certain movements, since the joust for which they were designed was held according to very strict rules. These armors were never worn in battle. Up until the power of the English longbow made it imperative to design armor that could withstand it, most knights were armored with mail, a typical hauberk weighing somewhere around 40 pounds or so. Also, AFAIK, the idea that European swords had blunt edges is a?@myth.?@Yes,it is true that they were probably not as razor sharp as a katana, but Hyakutake san has already said that the razor-sharp, and, consequently, exceedingly delicate edges on modern katana are a result of the art polish that collectors prize, and that a battle edge was nowhere near as sharp, precisely because such an edge would easily chip. In any case the whole "heavy, ponderous armored knights armed with blunt battering weapons" thing is just not true, and there was so much change and development over the years that one cannot just say "medieval European armor" and be done with it. The Vikings, who beat the crap out of everybody in Europe for a couple hundred years, discovered America, founded the first Russian sate, and laid siege to Constantinople, were usually equipped with a razor-sharp broadsword, a wooden shield, a fairly light helmet, and a hauberk of mail (if they were rich). Japanese armor, especially the kabuto, was probably just as good as a lot of European stuff (I still don`t understand the "gap-osis" though.)

    Oh, yeah, Dan: I never said that I drink White Zinfandel wine coolers. I only said that wine coolers are all that White Zinfandel "wine" is good for.
    Last edited by Earl Hartman; 18th March 2002 at 03:28.
    Earl Hartman

  8. #83
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Earl Hartman


    Dan:

    As far as I am concerned, this is the end of the discussion. My sole contention throughout this thread has been NOT that edge-to-edge blocking (or parrying, or deflecting, or whatever you want to call it) is desirable, it has been ONLY that the sword will survive it and that if it does not it is an inferior weapon. I believe that your statement supports that contention and that we can assume that a PROPERLY MADE Japanese sword will survive whatever edge to edge contact that may occur in the heat of battle. It will be damaged, but the damage will not be fatal.

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


    I have no problem with that statement Earl.
    As stated, it just needs all the qualifiers that go with it.
    1.Serviceable edge VS razor edge,
    2.Ashi to limit cracking,
    3.Tempering to limit brittleness (not all smiths did this),
    4.Edge to blunt object-fine (armor The Shinogi and mune etc.)
    5.The Shinogi and Mune will absorb shock. So sword techniques that parry with Mune and shinogi will preserve the blade.
    6.Edges that cut the mune and shinogi will survive.
    7.Repeated edge to edge contact=saw
    8.Depth of hamons effect on strength
    9.Placement of clay effecting body strength
    10.Not all Japanese blades (of any era)were good or even passable. SO there is no "standard" of Japanese excellence or superiority.

    on and on

    As we covered- there is just a tremendous amount of half-thought out, misinformed opinion that goes along with any discussion of the Japanese sword.
    Colin’s opinion about the serviceable edge matches my own. I would add that the serviceable edge VS the razor sharp one is so well known that I do not often talk about. To smiths, that topic is rather mundane and has been covered well. I frequently neglect repeating it more often when talking with Japanese sword "experts." Neither will Japanese swords part leaves in water or cut a silk scarf dropped on it. Only a Wootz blade will do that-and they're not a martensite product so the hardening/tempering model goes out the window.

    I say love Japanese swords for what they are-but broaden your knowledge base.


    Ellis's thoughts on fine motor skills going out the window are true enough but there are qualifiers there as well. Not all people will react the same way. Some people with training may surprise you.

    Most groups that have to deal with stressful environments train to deal with those same environments. Granted the Martial arts are sorely lacking in that regard. But there are means to induce stress in training and make steps toward that goal. Is it perfect?....please. Is it better then nothing-I would think so. Good training always helps. But stress is an unkown till you've been there.
    A healthy 4 tour Nam vet may respond differently to stress than a beat cop in Maine
    A beat cop in N.Y may respond differently than one in rural Mass.
    And two cops standing next to each other may respond differently as well.
    EMT's respond well to stress as well. I was part of an EMT response team that out-shone the cops at an accident scene.
    How would your average MA who trains in Solo Kata respond-or any art for that matter? Who knows!
    Cops and soldiers alike are full of stories of the average Joe doing amazing things both good and bad while under stress. And most of them -we could presume- have little, if any, training. So who knows for sure.

    The resultant fine motor skill loss as mentioned by Ellis comes from increased blood pressure and rapid breathing-which can reuslt in narrow vision, "freezing" of responses, poor judgement, etc. And at a point it can all cascade resulting in "flat affect" response, compliant behaviour, or passing out.
    At any rate the initial response to stress is not the same in all people. I'm a pretty cool cookie under stress (been there-done that) but so is my wife. She was the one who took command of that accident scene.
    People are full of surprises. You don't have to be some super-duper combat vet to respond well to stress. Who do you suppose is giving the cops so much trouble on the street pissed off average people. Even they will tell you to avoid domestics. Play that against several stories of Soldiers (affiliation left out- though it may surprise you)who panicked under stress.
    In the end we're all just folk. You train as best you can. Effective training will only add to someone’s abilities to deal with stress.

    Kata training-that frequently ill spoken of methodology- is laive in Cops and Soldiers as well. Doing something until it becomes an automatic response has a lot of wisdom when the crap hits the fan. But it all boils down to what your training yourself to do.

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


    Earl says
    Oh, yeah, Dan: I never said that I drink White Zinfandel wine coolers. I only said that wine coolers are all that White Zinfandel "wine" is good for.

    Earl my good man-it was a J-O-K-E.
    I know WHAT you said-that's why I picked "pink" Zinfandel to kid you.
    Just another example of my fine ability to communicate
    Just love talking with ya Earl

    Back to work
    Cheers
    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Harden; 18th March 2002 at 15:16.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    685
    Likes (received)
    111

    Default Adrenalin Dump -

    Dan -

    Agree that 1) training 2) experience allows the greater possibility that one can respond without panic, adrenaline sickness or chaotic terror. But recently read an account of a seasoned Vietnam vet talking about a close combat incident at night with knives et al, and he said that the first thing he did in the fight was accidentally stab himself.

    Within koryu, there is an implicit debate : some schools, like Jigen Ryu, "state" - "look, it's gonna happen - fine motor skills will deteriorate, gross motor skills will deteriorate - we, therefore, will train in a one-size-fits-all response, so that when combat starts, the body will have no alternative but to act in that one way." (note that young Satsuma warriors also used to train by getting very drunk, suspending a matchlock by a cord in the center of their circle, lighting the fuse, spinning it, and holding still - Satsuma roulette, as it were - they cultivated a particular attitude, more or less a willingness to run right into the face of death). Other schools believe that the high intensity repetition of sophisticated movement and technique 'rewires" the nervous system so that one responds appropriately whatever angle of attack, etc., comes. But often their contingency plan brings them back to Jigen Ryu thinking. Yagyu Shinkage Ryu's "Marubashi" technique and a similar one in Jikishin Kage Ryu essentially says, "In the end, go straight forward without thought of anything else and cut them down." As I recall, Kashima Shinto Ryu has a similar teaching as well.

    I think that most of the really strong ryu, whatever the form of training they went through, assumed that in the end that only highly trained reflex might survive battlefield chaos and panic, and that given the breakdown of such reflex in heightened states of arousal, simple methods which really didn't worry about parries, subtle attack, etc. would survive. And techniques to minimize such arousal (de-sensitization, forms of bio-feedback, breathing methods, etc.) would also be part of training

    Another aspect, expressed in a Spanish proverb : "he was a brave man - that day," is that success on one battlefield doesn't guarantee success on the next. Witness very brave men who psychologically break ("battle fatigue," now called PTSD.) So even if, in one battle, or at one point in the battle, one fights with grace and efficiency, there is a substantially unpredicable possibility that these skills will break down even in trained warriors. And the flip side - that one can fight "in a state of grace," (as you say, trained or not.) A friend of mine once described flying thru a narrow valley in North Vietnam, with a heat seeking SAM fired at him, and flack fired "horizontally" from both valley walls, and him cutting the engines to go into free-fall to get under the flack and erase his heat trail, and reigniting the engines at the very last moment, almost at the valley floor. Another example would be John Glenn - if I recall correctly, when his Space Capsule seemed doomed to crash, he flew it by wire, so to speak, and his heart rate didn't rise at all.)

    In sum, then, one trains to use the sword correctly. One assumes one often won't be able, or one's enemy is good enough to bust your intentions up, and one carries a weapon most likely to both make trained reflex possible and stand up against inevitable errors.

    With respect

    Ellis Amdur`

    P.S. I posted this, and noticed you edited your post - now I'm repeating you.

  10. #85
    Marc Renouf Guest

    Default

    Once again, Earl raises some very good points. You'll note, however, that nowhere in my post did I imply that I was talking about a full suit of tournament-grade Maximilian armor. But the point remains that a knight clad in leather gambeson, chain hauberk, coif, and leggings, and a fully enclosed steel pothelm (a typical battlefield get-up) is much more protected than most of the o-yoroi we see from Japan. This level of protection necessitates a difference in weapons and tactics.

    That said, Earl and Dan both accurately pointed out that "medieval Europe" comprises such a wide timeframe as to make comparisons difficult. That was precisely my point: comparisons are difficult.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Palo Alto, Ca, USA
    Posts
    1,324
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Thanks, once again, to Dan and Ellis for their well-considered replies.

    My main point in discussing European armor was to call into question the assumption that the typical European knight was, as Marc said, "armored like a tank". It was simply not true. A full harness of high quality mail was nowhere near as heavy and cumbersome as most people think, nor did it render a man invulnerable. Indeed, I have heard that it was expected that a well-trained man would, while in full harness, be able to 1) swim, 2) climb a ladder from the underside using only his hands, and 3) vault into the saddle of his horse without using his hands. Even assuming that not everyone could do this, it indicates that the armor was not that heavy. Mail was good proof against an edge, or against a thrust with a broad-bladed, single-handed weapon, but if the blow was powerful enough, and the edge of the sword was better tempered than the mail, which was surely most often the case, then the mail would probably lose that encounter. Also, a full harness of high quality, close mesh, riveted mail was EXTREMELY expensive and so available to relatively few warriors. The chances are that most of the fighters in any medieval battle were not that well armored.

    Differences in armor will of course lead to differences in weapons and tactics. No argument there. However, I would wager that in all times and places a warrior would rely first and foremost on his skill to protect him. Even pothelms have eye slits.
    Earl Hartman

  12. #87
    Marc Renouf Guest

    Default "Armored like a tank"

    Perhaps I should have chosen a better expression than "armored like a tank." My intention was not to imply "slow, cumbersome, and invulnerable," but rather "well-protected." To carry my analogy to modern times, I don't think anyone would imply that an M1A1 is slow or cumbersome. Like the knight who can vault into the saddle and climb ladders hand-over-hand, the Abrams is very fast and surprisingly agile given the amount of armor that it carries. Does this make more sense?

    So broken down to its basics and using no analogies, I assert that the medieval European knight (ca. 960-1200 AD) wore armor with more comprehensive protective capability than the typical Sengoku Jidai samurai (ca 1300-1600 AD). Do you disagree with this assertion?

    It is of note that the differences one sees in weapons developed to combat these types of armor give us a number of clues. For instance, the prevalence and quality of mail armor in Europe in the early middle ages led to the development of weapons like the flanged mace and flail. Mail protects very well against slashing, bladed attacks, but is flexible (which gives the wearer excellent mobility). But its lack of rigidity leaves the wearer open to the risk of blunt force trauma. Hence, "bashing" weapons were developed to exploit this weakness. Why worry about cutting your opponent when you can stave in his ribcage?

    Using a sword against these kinds of opponents is fine, because the edge of the sword will still concentrate the force along a thin line. You may not cut your opponent, but you'll probably break bones and cause internal bleeding. And if you're not worried about cutting your opponent, it beomes much less important to forge a sword that can hold a keen edge. But if you're just going to bludgeon someone to death, it becomes more effective to use a weapon that concentrates its weight at the business end of the weapon (hence the mace and hand-axe, rather than the sword).

    That's the most interesting thing about some of the archeological finds in Europe. In some cases (an excavation of an area raided by Danes ca. 600 AD), we see that the combatants were not heavily armored. Their bones suffer a number of nicks and cuts, showing that they were attacked with bladed weapons that cut into flesh and bone alike. But at other, later sites, we don't see the same kinds of nicks and cuts to the bones. Bones are broken wholesale, in some cases crushed. By examining the nature of the wound (along a line or centralized around a single point of impact), the depth of the wound, etc, archaeologists can make some guesses as to what type of weapon killed them. It's really fascinating stuff. I'll go through some of my journal articles and dig up a few references for you, if you're interested.

    Later in the middle ages, when rigid armor became more readily available (plate cuirass), you again see a change in weapon types, as piercing weapons like the pick, lucerne hammer, and eventually the pike begin to emerge. These weapons concentrate an immense amount of force upon a very small area, which is perfect for piercing rigid metal armor. The wearer may not have been encased head-to-toe in rigid armor, but weapons still changed to deal with that capability.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Palo Alto, Ca, USA
    Posts
    1,324
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Like I said, I never argued that weapons, armor, and tactics didn't change as they developed in an intimate relationship with each other. I was only taking issue with the picture presented of the European knight as a lumbering gorilla, weighted down with heavy and cumbersome armor. If that is not what you meant, fine.

    However, one thing that has always puzzled me is, since good mail is such good protection against an edge, why the Japanese did not employ it more. It also works quite well against arrows; as I have said before, it was, among other things, the power of the Welsh (English) longbow, unequalled by any continental European bows, that made it necessary to develop better body protection, eventually leading to all plate harnesses, since even the best riveted mail could not withstand it. Much of this development took place during the Hundred Years War, precisely when the English armies, which were made up primarily of yeoman archers, kept defeating vastly (numerically, at any rate) superior French forces at places like Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt.

    However, I do not know if I can accept, without some documentation, the contention that European smiths did not care too much about developing swords with really hard, sharp edges since it was impossible to cut through mail anyway. This sounds like a chicken-and-egg thing to me. Did mail work against swords because the edges were not sharp enough, or vice versa? We'll probably never know.

    Regarding the types of wounds dealt by European weapons, the one case with which I am familiar is that of the mass graves excavated at Wisby, on the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea. A battle took place there some time in the mid 1300s, I think, and many dead were hastily buried, some still in their armor. This allowed scholars to get a very good idea of they type of armor prevalent at that time. Also, a study of the wounds showed that many of the dead had been cut with bladed weapons in the lower leg and the junction of the neck and shoulder, indicating that these areas were favorite targets. There were even some corpses who had had one or both legs hewn clean off.

    Granted, the better the armor the more chance of being killed by blunt trauma than with a clean cut. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that European swords couldn't cut. It is all relative, anyway. As Dan has said, that depends just as much on edge geometry as pure sharpness, something I wish he would talk a little more about.

    Getting back to mail for a second, I have seen some Japanese mail body protection, probably Edo period, linked in the European fashion (called, appropriately enough "Nanban kusari", or "Southern barbarian chain"). The mail was quite light and, consequently, probably was little protection against a good sword of whatever type. Part of the protective quality of good hauberk is due not only to the 4-to-1 link pattern common to all European mail, but to its weight, which helped absorb shock, and to that fact that it was riveted. Without the rivets, it is not that hard to get a point through a hauberk.

    At any rate, I still wonder why mail never became as popular in Japan, since it is a fairly light and flexible defense which can be made in such a way that most weak points are covered. I'll bet you anything that, given the skill with which Japanese swords are made, they could have made some seriously kick-ass mail as well. Perhaps it was just a matter of what the Japanese were familiar with and natural human conservatism.
    Last edited by Earl Hartman; 20th March 2002 at 08:37.
    Earl Hartman

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Darlington, UK
    Posts
    1,019
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    edge or not? depends on how desperate your situation is, but if the sword is nicked you can always buy another one, your leg, head, etc. is a slightly different matter....

    Tim
    Tim Hamilton

    Why are you reading this instead of being out training? No excuses accepted...

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Chile, SouthAmerica (Here's America too)
    Posts
    124
    Likes (received)
    0

    Wink Check some iai katas

    I practice Muso Shinden Ryu Iai and there´s a kata in the shoden waza called Ryuto, where you are supposed to receive an attack from the left and the first movement is to (or attempt to) block the first katana strike. Well that's how I learned the kata from my sensei. I guess there are some videos on the web...
    Paulo K. Ogino A.
    Architect
    Muso Shinden Ryu Iaido

    "Now there's void... tomorrow is not the day"

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Imperial Forge High Carbon Katana
    By Ryo Hazuki in forum Buy, Sell, or Trade
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12th September 2005, 06:29
  2. Straight bladed ninja-to
    By Hurtzdontit in forum Ninpo and Ninjutsu
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 19th August 2005, 03:11
  3. Question on katana blocking
    By cesarjohnson in forum Sword Arts
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12th May 2004, 19:37
  4. Cutting test of Shogun Katana and Tiger Wakizashi
    By Toyamadude in forum Sword Arts
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 14th December 2000, 15:18

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •