hi there,
i was discussing the use of the taiha yesterday with some maori friends of mine who are practised in its use.
the taiha is a wooden weapon, somewhere between a spear and a long sword - about 4 feet long it has a hard wood spear point and is held below this point with both hands. the lower part of the weapon is the striking blade, a flat, hard wooden blade of lenticular cross section - much like a large double edged sword, though it widens towards the tip. when i saw these guys demonstrate a few primary moves - frighteningly beautiful in their speed and force - though i have seen very little of long sword play - i could well imagine similarities between the two martial styles.
apparently, according to my friends, these hardened wooden blades could cut through flesh and break bone. i was surprised too hear that they could cleave flesh, despite the considerable speed and weight with which they are wielded and am not sure if this is accurate. ayone else heard of wooden blades having any cutting, and not just bashing, ability?

cheers, adam

hi,
in case anyone wants too look up pictures of this very effective weapon, it is spelt taiaha (pronounced tie-ah-ha), and not taiha as i wrote above,

cheers, adam :p

another thing,

In the many wars of conquest conducted by the English in New Zealand about a century and a half ago, the so called 'superior' english weapons, sabres, field guns and muskets, were time and again woefully defeated at the hands of the well practised Maori warriors wielding stone and wooden weapons. it was not till the english brought overwhelming numbers of men with huge firepower, as well as soliciting the help of some local tribes, when they were able too force the Maori warriors and their 'primitive' weapons into acccepting a truce and co-existence in this beautiful country.

adam

hi,
here's a couple pics, found some better ones in colour but they said bmp on the end and weren't allowed as attachments?
i don't quite understand how this works,
cheers, adam

---

 Attachment: 50.55 KB



 Attachment: 26.19 KB
[ Download ]

 Attachment: 41.39 KB
[ Download ]

hi,
i am no expert on history, but i have heard several accounts of battle situations where, in close combat, the british soldiers were outclassed by their Maori counterparts. In the accounts which i have heard, this is attributed to the extensive training of the maori fighters in one on one close combat fighting, where the british training focused more on formation shooting and long range musket use and bayonet charges -
the referenced thread says that close combat was the only area where the british outclassed the maori - this seems strange as the maori did not fight with projectile weapons at all, so how they could have equalled the english in long distance clashes where the british had muskets and canon - i really can't imagine

cheers, adam

hi jean,

i think you make some very good points and most intelligent "interpretations",

i, too, find it difficult to believe that the british could have been clearly superior hand to hand combatants against warriors who trained from children exclusively for close combat warfare with a variety of single and double handed weapons

i believe that the sabre was a secondary weapon for situations where the musket and bayonet where discarded or no longer servicable, and that, in the infantry regiments at least, sabre training was not necessarily highly developed

however, i really don't know how well versed the british soldiers of the 18th - 19th centuries were in sabre and hand to hand combat techniques, would be interesting to know, perhaps training directives still exist somewhere?

The British army of that period was full of very experienced and formidible close quarter combatants. The Maori and the British both have a strong, proud culture and sweeping statements about any apparent superiority betrays an ignorance of the history of the conflict between them.

For example (from wikipedia);
John Murray (February 1837- 7 November 1911) was born Birr, County Offaly and was an Irish recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces. He was approximately 27 years old, and a sergeant in the 68th Regiment (later The Durham Light Infantry), British Army during the Waikato-Hauhau Maori War, New Zealand when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC.

On 21 June 1864 at Tauranga, New Zealand, when the enemy's position was being stormed, Sergeant Murray ran up to a rifle-pit containing eight to ten of the enemy and, without any assistance, killed or wounded all of them. He then went on up the works, fighting with his bayonet.

I am sure there are many of these kind of histories on both sides. I think it could be said that the most admirable thing about the Maori wasn't individual combat prowess, but rather the speed and effectiveness with which they adapted to a completely alien foe.

Quote:

, too, find it difficult to believe that the british could have been clearly superior hand to hand combatants against warriors who trained from children exclusively for close combat warfare with a variety of single and double handed weapons

Why? Men are just men. British, Maori, it doesn't matter. Some are better fighters than others. Some are just luckier. The maori may have trained since birth, but the British were full time professional soldiers.

Quote:

i believe that the sabre was a secondary weapon for situations where the musket and bayonet where discarded or no longer servicable, and that, in the infantry regiments at least, sabre training was not necessarily highly developed

Once hand to hand combat was joined many senior NCOs and Officer would have used their sabres, as they weren't always armed with bayonets.

Quote:

however, i really don't know how well versed the british soldiers of the 18th - 19th centuries were in sabre and hand to hand combat techniques, would be interesting to know, perhaps training directives still exist somewhere?

There sure are; http://www.thearma.org/EighteenthCentList.htm.

[quote="Jean Thibodeau']Maybe the British " bested " the Maori in close quarter fighting because they decimated most of them with gun fire and only had to deal with the few surviving ones in hand to hand combat and actually outnumbered them at that point.[/quote]
Considering that much of the war was fought in trenches, and that the Maori made full use of firearms themselves, I don't think this is the case.

Quote:

It does seem odd that highly trained warrior could be bested by soldiers mostly trained with firearms ? The British soldiers of that time might have been very competent with bayonet but I would assume that a warrior from a warrior culture would be much more skilled in a variety of techniques and a musket with bayonets is just like a spear and that would be a weapon I would imagine the Maori would be experienced fighting with or against.

So a "warrior" is automatically more proficient than a full time professional soldier is with his primary weapon?

Quote:

Finally, if the sources saying that the British where superior in close combat was from British sources there is at least some reason to believe that national pride might colour period accounts ?

You could also argue that modern day national and cultural pride might also "colour" period accounts... ;)

Taylor;

You are quite right that I know little if anything of combat between the Maori and the British: So consider my words to have been mere speculations and questions than statements of fact. :D :cool:

I defer to your knowledge of this history as it's a period and place where I have zero knowledge.

As to warrior versus professional soldier and which would be expected to be the better fighter ? Probably it should be a topic on it's own and there probably isn't one single answer: I don't think, as you rightly stated, that one can make " automatic "
assumptions about " warriors " being superior. ( Too hasty with my conclusions )

I would guess that there would be many many variables that one should discuss to even arrive at a conclusion !
The answer could even be: It depends ! ;) :lol:

Hi Adam,
Your friends wouldn't happen to have a website or know of one? I would love to see the taiaha in action.
Cheers,
Chuck

hi chuck,
sorry, but i can't refery you to anty web sites, if you do a search you'll probably find something though.

it seems a part of the discussion has tended towards - who is better then who - either these people or those people - always an unfortunate and rediculous position when speaking generally, about large groups of people, particularly when those refered to were doing their thing centuries ago.

taylor,
i agree that "sweeping statements" about apparrent superiorities of one group over another is only going to obscure and emotionally colour arguments. it was never my intention to infer that maori were overall better warriors then the british, what i was in fact disputing was a statement made in another forum whicvh is referenced above, which asserts that the british were clearly better in close combat situations then the maori. perhaps my position seems unbalanced in the absence of those statements in this thread.

you question my belief as to the improbability of a clear british superiority in hand to hand combat situations, saying that "men are just men. British, Maori, it doesn't matter." this substantiates my point - where two forces of similar creatures (men) meet, both forces being highly trained combatants - that one group should so clearly outclass the other (as is stated in the referenced thread on SFI) in hand to hand combat i find improbable , particularly given what we know of the Maori expertise in close combat fighting.
it was never my intention to infer that the maori were genearally 'better' fighters then the english, but, rather, that i find both this and the reverse statement, that the british forces were clearly superior, to be unhelpful and dubious claims, and probably say more about the claimants contemporary allegiances then their historical knowledge.

as you point out, some men are better fighters then others, and no doubt on both sides there were excellent as well as less competent warriors.

thanks for the info Mikko,

i was surprised to learn that wood could cut flesh, but as you point out, i guess it makes sense, as long as the edge geometry suits. the taiaha becomes broad and thin down the blade section of the weapon, no doubt to facilitate its cutting ability

cheers, adam

Adam,
Ok, I see the context you were writing in now, but since many people here don't read SFI it's not hard to miss.

Also statements like;
In the many wars of conquest conducted by the English in New Zealand about a century and a half ago, the so called 'superior' english weapons, sabres, field guns and muskets, were time and again woefully defeated at the hands of the well practised Maori warriors wielding stone and wooden weapons. it was not till the english brought overwhelming numbers of men with huge firepower, as well as soliciting the help of some local tribes, when they were able too force the Maori warriors and their 'primitive' weapons into acccepting a truce and co-existence in this beautiful country.

are obviously coloured by national and cultural bias. The Maori of the 19th century were very effective warriors. The fact that the Brits have always considered them such only highlights this point. The truth of it though is that the Maori did a spectacular job of not letting the Brits fight like they wanted too. The Brits also did a commendable job of fighting a formidible enemy, usually on his own terms. There biggest failing wasn't individual combat prowess, but rather failing to bring the Maori into an open battle where they could decisively defeat them.

In the end it wasn't superiority or modern weapons that finished off the Maori resistance, it was the fact that they were an agrerian culture and the Brits were supported by an industrial empire. They could fight 12 months a year, the Maori couldn't. Interestingly, there were both Maori and British on both sides during the whole conflict, and the biggest single conflict, the Battle of Waimate Pa, didn't include British at all! The Anglican church and many of it's powerful supporters refused to support the NZ government and actually backed the Maori claims that the Crown forces had broken the Treaty.

thanks for your reply Taylor,

it seems you are better informed as to this asspect of nz history then i am , and i think your point about the different food production methods of the different sides is an interesting one and helps to contextualise the topic, showing that there are many more factors to such historical situations then mere weaponry or the prowess of indivdual soldiers etc.

diseases, availability of resources, environmental factors etc no doubt play considerable roles in deciding the outcomes of both historical and contemporary competition between different cultures and groups.

you say that my statements are "obviously coloured by national and cultural bias". fair enough. this being obvious to you, could you please tell me exactly where you assume my "national and cultural" biases reside? I am interested in your impression, as this will help show me how my words have been read.


cheers, adam

One thing about sharpness and how much of it is needed to be effective at cutting flesh I would make the comparison to the teeth of carnivores like the wolf, lion alligator or tiger: I remember looking at a photograph of a tiger showing a close-up of his canine teeth and the points of the teeth where far from needle sharp. Now there may be some teeth that are much sharper like shark's teeth as an example.

A wooden edge can't be sharpened to an edge comparable to steel but decent edge geometry is very possible.
The hardness of the wood is enough for the edge to hold up against flesh.

Closer to home: The next time you bite into a steak or chicken leg notice how easy it is for your own teeth to cut the meat. ;) :p

If our teeth where razor sharp we would all have accidentally bitten off our own tongues long ago and be lisping through life.
:eek: :lol:

Jokes aside I just mean that edges don't have to be very sharp to be effective and any extra sharpness just makes an edge more aggressive and needing less pressure to do the job.

hi tyler,

it seems that in the light of a more comprehensive understanding of the maori wars, my original, perhaps 'sweeping' statements as to the incompetence of the british soldiers when facing the maori on their home turf, were innapropriately 'sweeping' and ill informed. i would like to inform you that this is not from a position of overt cultural bias - i am in fact a british citizen from an english family and both my father, grandfather and great grandfather all served in the british armed forces.

if my original statements are misleadingly 'sweeping', this is because i made them from a position of relative ignorance,
based on an incomplete knowledge of the circumstances of the period to which i was referring. perhaps it didn't help that my original statements as too maori defeat of british forces were largley made as a reaction against what i thought was an overly anglo-centric position, as stated in the other forum. i wanted to voice the history i have heard, of the bravery and skill of the maori warriors, and if i did so by detracting from the excellence of their opponents, this is unhelpful and not what i actually intended. such reactionary, either - or positions don't help those who are genuinely interested in constructive debate.

thanks for your patience, adam