well they are both light longswords taht are made to be used one handed with the option of two hands and there are heavier ones made for two hand with the opiotn of using with one hand like if you got injure in one arm. But they still arnt mas weapons although some were designed to be tough enough to bash into plate and break bones through concussive force but they are also made to thrust though plate. BNut a sowd is nto usally the first choice against heavier armor hammers were and the most godly weapon the pollaxe. But I would rather have a side sword ie a cut and thrust one hander for selfdefense a longsword is to long to draw quickly. A combat epee is proabably a smallsword. I dont have superior knowledge I jsut have lots of books and time.
I meant superior to mine. I know quite a bit about swords and sword styles, and I am fairly certain of the accuracy of most of my knowledge, because I do take the time to check what people tell me and what I read. Even so, your experience with actually working with metal supercedes my knowledge which comes just about entirely from reading. Doesn't bother me a bit. As for the rest, I suspect that what we're really disagreeing about comes down to a difference of intent (your posts) vs. ability (my posts.) You've been saying that B-Swords and 2-Hand Swords were not intended to be used as mass weapons. I've been indicating that, while they were not exclusively mass weapons, they were sometimes used in that manner-- and quite effectively, too. And, yes, I know that the hammer and poleaxe-- and occasionally other long-handled can-openers-- were the preferred methods of peeling an armored foe. The thing is, swords have been used effectively against armor, and not exclusively by thrusting. Further, just as in Japanese MA, Westerners did not limit themselves to attacking with the blade. They also used the hilt, the cross-guard, and, in certain weapons, the scabbard. To practitioners of kenjutsu, this should all sound eerily familiar. My main point has been that JMA and WMA were both complex and effective combat systems. The thing is, they were different-- not better, just different.
well gee..... I had forgoten aobut hammering with the quillions so i guess yeah swords can be mass weapons if you want to use the whol sword. Sometime I forget little thing like that. I thought you meant the blades themselves were mass weapons. Silly me. \ And as to my knowledge of metal working. It is greater than a lot of people but its still not up where it should be. well then I see.............ofcourse they are *nods in agreement* If neither were good they wouldnt be here now then would they? And I happen to like JSA alot but circumstances conspired to introduce me to WSA other wise I woild probably still be a lot more ignorant of medieval blades than I am now. And I plan on learning some JSA in the future.
As I recall, claymores and other oversized swords were originally used to take down mounted soldiers by attacking the legs of their horses. Once a heavily armored opponent was dismounted they would be essentially helpless, easily dispatched with a final thrust of a sword or a whack with a hammer. The rapier developed alongside gunpowder. Early muskets began to make heavy armor obsolete, and as armor lightened so did the swords. Without armor, speed and accuracy became much more important than penetrating power. The ninja-to was basically whatever sword did the job. Function was paramount with little or no regard to form. Real ninjas didn't go online and order their stuff from Karate-Mart.com, they improvised with whatever was available. Katanas, on the other hand, were the elite weapons of the aristocrats. No expense was spared to produce the best, most beautiful sword possible. The samurai who wielded them attributed supernatural qualities to their weapons.
Yep, The katana was a long curved blade folded many times and made very strong (not lecturing cuz you prolly already know) but what most people underestimate is the ninja-to. The ninjas used the blades because they were short, meaning they would come out of the sheath faster, straight edged, meaning the blade could run along the back of they're arm and back for easier concealment and it could thrust and cut someones throat easier then a katana. It was also easily concealed in things. When a ninja had to go head to head with a fully trained samurai with only swords, 9/10 times the samurai would whip the ninja unless someone named Kinjo came by (for any of you who saw The Hunted with christopher lambert, best ninja movie, very authentic) but of course it wasn't the best sword. Every sword uses some different style that is countered by something else. So if your getting a sword to use then i would prolly recommend a katana but for decoration go all out and get a sweet @$$ lookin german zweihander type claymore. Really long wide claymore yeah they look cool
rapiers evolved for street combat to counter the cut and thrust swords of the late medieval early reneisance. They really werent used for battle. And while large swords could be used to cut down a horse they were more usd to cut the rider down out of his horse. And to hammer into the the heavier armoer that was being used at the time. in case no one noticed as the swords and other weaposn got bigger the armor got heavier and tougher. Adn armored wariors would not be helpless if dismounted. Even a full plate armor harness was not hat heavy nore encumbering. Knights were able to leap into their saddles unaided or at least vault up and the war horses were big horses thinks clysdale big they were used as war horses. But in the mid to late medieavl period more and more knights and other heavily armored warriors were fighitng dismounted so they could use two-handed weapons like pollaxes. Adn if you are loolking for a sword to use get what you know. I know longswords so it would not a good idea from to get a katana now would it. It would be a better idea to get a light longsword or a great-sword somethign i know. I am reminded of line from a movie "What is steel compared to the hand that weilds it" That was from Conan" The Barbarian and Thulsa Doom said it. One of the few good points of that movie. THat and the fact that is shows Conan traing with some kind of katana looking sword but he chooses some funky pseudo Euro fantasy barbarian sword.
From what "my" swordsmith sais (and he's actually a japanese sword collector as well) the iron ores in Japan contained phosphour, a substance that acording to him made the japaneese swords a bit.. "crisp?!?" (sorry, english is my second language) ..easier to break, than say swords made of european iron. (Even today japan is hugely dependent on metal import from other countries and scrap metal)
Well, I will respect your martial art, but I want to correct you. Medieval swords were made of metal with better quality than japanese swords and thy were not made out of one piece of steel (Ever heard of damask?) In fact european swords can be made of 40000layers as well. It's just a question of banging out the metal, fold over, bang out, fold over, bang out, fold over, etc. It was even done in remote Norway by the primitive vikings!!! (You can actually find the same type of storyies in the norse sagas about fantastically strong swords that could cut ambolts, as you find in Japan -which proves more about the blacksmith's status in those cultures than of the potential of the blades...) The medieval european swords were allso made of several different types of metal; one type for the core, one type for the peripheral parts and one type for the edges -just like katanas. As for teqnices, you're right. The japanese fightingstyles can trace a direct line bact to the heydays of the Katana, the medieval longswordstyles cannot. But just because you've seen or perhaps even sparred with some poor ******* that you've beaten to smitherens that only have some fragmented remains of a 600year old manual (like that of Fiore Del Libere, Talhoffer, silva or I-33) to work on mabye even without a teacher - doesn't nessecarily mean that medieval eurpean swordstecniqes were primitive. Two martial tecniqes that have been frequently used in europe that is met with success in the no-rule martial arts tournements is wresteling and boxing, so don't write off simplicity and brute efficiency. When I see you easternmartialartists dancing around with your toes in the air, I allways think how many years I would have needed to come even close to achive the same thins; as of the unarmed combat presented by 1700 boxing, or fiore del liberes freesylewrestling (it actually have much in common with Tai-chi and aikido) from 1410 seems a much more sound system to me that is a bit fat and weigh 90 kg... That somthing is difficult to do doesn't nessecarily mean that it is practical to do in a real fight. I think Hollywood have made the myth of the immortally divine perfectionness of the eastern martial arts. I don't want to say anything bad about eastern martial arts, I just think it is a bit overrated compared to other styles; I mean the human body have been the same for roughly 100 000 years, and there is only a limited number of things you can do with your body, so I have problems writing off other cultures in the world. I think martal arts around the world have more that unites them that separates them.
Probably off topic, but I have to... You must read up on your history... Russia crushed japan completely in 44 -45 led by general Zukhow (I think it was him) They allso swept over the Kurils with no hard effort. you can say that by then Japan was allready defeated (that was the oppinion in USA , and that Soviet did it only to get better grounds for negotiations after the war) Japanese tanks were totally crap. If they were superior to europe, why did they try to import jet fighters and material for atomic bombs from Germany? in 1247 the mongols defeated 40 000 poles and germans alone... Europe was not the leading nation in the 1200, neither were the japanese, but the Mongols! -The most successfull concuerers apart form GB and today;USA The reason the japanese prais the konsept of Kamikaze is that it was IN THEIR OWN OPPINION The Kamikaze only that saved Japan from invation back in the good ol' 1200's
Allthough I'm from Norway, I don't know particulary much about norwegian / norse vikingswords. There are interesting bits of info from the sagas (mostly written on Iceland in the 11 / 12th century) -conserning swords and their quality, where you have everything from scenes where fighters have to streighten their swords several times during one battle -to the one I've allready mentioned, about the blacksmith (I think he's a Dwarf) that could cut an ambolt with his sword. What I do know, is that the norwegian moars contain iron with good enough qualith that it was exported to Europe from the end of the bronze age and up to the 16th century. There is allso many swordfindings from scandinavia, and several of them is made the "Damask" way. I allso know that imported blades became very fancy in norway during and after the Viking age, but I don't actually know wether that was due to better swords from europe or plain fassion. The Normans were Vikings that was given Normandie in France to stop pestering Paris. They were if not the first so very eary in lengthening the swords (so they could be better used from the horseback on peasants and Saxons...) To really learn about viking sword qualith, i recomend Swordforum.com, or to loock up in books in libraries.
in regard to both the european (in fact Damascus,Syria those in Europe could not keep an edge and were quiet prone to breakeage) and Japanese Nihonto(blade) The Europeans used folded (syria) and non folded blades. The folded blades were the best made short of wootz steel(from India in 2.3kg ingots called cakes) which came in both style. The damscus blade was layered and folded or was wootz steel that had certain impurities in the iron/steel the pattern left after tempering the blade is the impurities. The folding of the steel was the smith trying to match the impurity pattern. The Japanese took a more intense route from ritual purifications to special robes. the blades them selves are in nine known patterns in blad construction from the most common Maru(weakest) to the Soshu Kitae(Best) The Maru was just plain folded and tempered the Soshu Kitae was laminated steel a soft center sandwhiched between the hardest steel of the Ha(edge) and Mune(back) which is in turn sandwhich between two medium hardened layers and again sandwhiched between two more extremely hardened outer plates x xtreme s soft m medium xxx xmsmx xmsmx xmsmx xmxmx mxm x now as far as the steel was concerned the true damasus steel can and will hold a better edge but in the same shape can not with stand the same stress as Nihonto(Soshu Kitae) blades, but in its own shape is roughly 20% more limber(with stands more stress) where as the Nihonto was not shaped like the damascus forged weapons(mainly the fuller or bloodletter). which makes the blades equal is the tempering. They each have their strong points(european against armor/shield and the Nihonto against another edge). they are of equal weight. the real advantage goes to the european or even the chinese sword because of the double edge(ie more attack options) as Far as style goes the Europeans placed a lot on shield and shield work where as the Japanese do not(P.S. they preferred the use of dual blades and yes some in europe did also but not much). so the real and only way to see which is truelly better is to match two swordmasters of each school to see. The old saying a good offence is the best defence(bosh it is ,not to be there when the blow arrives or have something between you and it)just study your history and you will see that Japan had reason to fear the mainland(invasion) yet the tsunami's saved them,I believe twice please don't quote me on this. longsword(p.s. was not called this at the time it is a dramatization of fiction from the present. the greatsword, hand and a half[*******], and the short sword are the names for the types of european swords.
what the bolo batallions used! (half leafs, tabacs, puting guhits, kalis, barongs, krises, ginuntings)
Katanas Personally love katanas. Nothing I have held can compete with the balance and smoothness when working with the katana. Of course it has to be a well made katana, not some cheap copy.
There is no actual historical justification for the "Ninja" straight sword...it is the stuff of movie fantasy and fictions. As for Katana v. Claymore. There is no comparrison. These are two distinctly different weapons with equally distinct styles of use. The claymore was not the "speedy" finesse weapon the Katana is but, in it's own right and used in the manner it was intended and the styles that were devolped for it, it was a fairly nasty weapon in compbat and on the whole, great swords were just as effective as the Katana if used properly in their own styles.
in regard to both the european (in fact Damascus,Syria those in Europe could not keep an edge and were quiet prone to breakeage) and Japanese Nihonto(blade) Where do you get this information from, please cite a source I can verify. The Europeans used folded (syria) and non folded blades. The folded blades were the best made short of wootz steel(from India in 2.3kg ingots called cakes) which came in both style. The damscus blade was layered and folded or was wootz steel that had certain impurities in the iron/steel the pattern left after tempering the blade is the impurities. The folding of the steel was the smith trying to match the impurity pattern. You are somewhat mistaken on this point. Wootz "was" Damascus and what you are calling Damascus was actully called Pattern-Welding. This is a common misconception. Please see: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html The Japanese took a more intense route from ritual purifications to special robes. the blades them selves are in nine known patterns in blad construction from the most common Maru(weakest) to the Soshu Kitae(Best) The Maru was just plain folded and tempered the Soshu Kitae was laminated steel a soft center sandwhiched between the hardest steel of the Ha(edge) and Mune(back) which is in turn sandwhich between two medium hardened layers and again sandwhiched between two more extremely hardened outer plates x xtreme s soft m medium xxx xmsmx xmsmx xmsmx xmxmx mxm x now as far as the steel was concerned the true damasus steel can and will hold a better edge but in the same shape can not with stand the same stress as Nihonto(Soshu Kitae) blades, but in its own shape is roughly 20% more limber(with stands more stress) where as the Nihonto was not shaped like the damascus forged weapons(mainly the fuller or bloodletter). which makes the blades equal is the tempering. ---Perhaps this will help a bit: http://www2.memenet.or.jp/kinugawa/english/sword/sword100.htm
Now whie, I may agre withg someof what u said er posted... but I will have to disagree on ur statemnt that a claymor, assuming this is the greatsword not the broadsword,is not a finesse weapon. NOw after spenidng about 2 years working with greatswords, nothing big just mock ups in with my sparring group that are fairly close in weight and balance to what I belive is how they were back in the days, and whil eit does take some muscle to use it greatswords are fairly nimble and quick as long as U let the swrd fight and not fight the sword. And since it is larger and weightier than what all my old sparring group used i had to use a lot more finesse. And why use a claymore to kill an ox why notuse i duno a gun or a hammer or an axe all would do the job much better.
Claymore v. scotty You misread the statement Cudgel...I said the Claymore was not the "speedy", finesse weapon the Katana is"...not "the claymore is not the speedy, finesse weapon..."and" the Katana is! The emphasis here is on the adjective "speedy". What I meant by that is simply this, the Claymore, in its own right...is an incredibly deadly tool if used in the way it was meant to be used and in the styles that were adapted and developed for it, and I believe I also said that it was just as effective as the Katana if used properly in said same manners that were again, developed for it. I was not saying that the Claymore is NOT a finesse weapon, but the Katana is! I was saying that each, in their own right are very deadly and very effective given their own respective styles...What I was aiming at here is, that when it comes down to it, no two ways about it...I'm gonna get where I need to go much faster with a Japanese weapon given the styles that were developed for it, than I will with the Scotty... Heck man! that was one of the big issues in my research essay on the two handers...do ya think I would backpeddle now?
OOPS........ Forgive me for misreading. I must have had a headache or something or been tired when i read your post.
