[Glen A Cleeton]

I am momentarily disheartened by statements such as There's a reason that 18th - 19th c broadswords are, well, broad, and not tapered like a Type XV - no armour, which means you are again emphasizing the cut. because there was a far amount of not just heavy uniform coverage but also hard armour and helmets right up to the end of the age of the sword.

We are trying to compare the 18th and 19th (and 20th) century swords with the medieval and it often becomes a matter of apples vs oranges. A lot of the observations have been spot on but (imo) rambling well off the real issues and not being perhaps as precise as one may be in analogy and abstracts.

Contexts please guys, for the poor readers in the galleries. Especially so in the cut vs thrust which has been included in better context within this thread.

High tides and the moon drive some of these discussions to occlusions of any rampart

Cheers

GC

[Christian Henry Tobler]

One of the simplest ways to evaluate what geometries are most practical for a given purpose is to step away from the world of weapons (which can have elements of fashion clouding any analysis of their utility) and turn to the world of tools.

Want a tool optimizes purely for sticking/stabbing? Then look to the awl or icepick. How about a tool for cutting through heavy, resistant brush? Here we have the machete - these tools (which looks suspiciously like falchions or messers) show us the optimum shape for hewing blows. Were this not so, folks living in jungle and rainforest terrain would use something else, because there's certainly no romanticism tying them to these tools.

Now of course, human bodies and brush don't behave precisely the same way, but there must be some reasonable commonalities, else we wouldn't be using rice mats and saplings for our own practice.

All the best,

Christian

[Ragnar A. Olsen]

A bit off topic but relates to cutting performance.

Something I've been curious about lately when it comes to cutting performance. Doesn't the length of the hilt have a significant impact? I was just browsing youtube the other day and came across some "record" for tatami cutting.
The sword that was used had a hilt nearly as long as the blade. Made wonder if it isn't the length of the hilt on the katana combined with the stiffness of the blade and geometry of the edge, rather then the curve that makes them such good cutting swords.

I'm thinking, the longer the hilt on a sword, the further you'll extend "the strong" and as such gain a lot more leverage and as a result greater cutting performance or am I just confusing myself?

[Greg Mele]

[Scott Hrouda]

I’ve been following this thread since Michael’s OP. His weapon control and form as shown in the video are incredible.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Fair enough comments all around Scott. Thanks for posting your perspective.

Yours,

Christian

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Guys,

Surely it's beyond debate that a flat profiled blade, weighted more towards the center of percussion, is going to cut - with some outlier exceptions - better than an isoceles triangle shaped blade.

We don't Oakeshott, Greg, or anyone else to know that: it's basic physics. If not, then someone needs to convince Home Depot to sell axes shaped like type XV swords. But good luck on that...

@Jean: The Cold Steel messer really doesn't tell us anything about messers in general. It's simply a poorly-made sword.

Cheers,

Christian

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Greg Mele]

Jean,

It is no secret that you don't care for me, and that is fine - you have never posted to me on this forum except to tell me I'm wrong or accuse me of being either an elitist or misreading history. So, I knew that would be your response. But a test-cutting video proves nothing. If I use a $200 katana and a custom made arming sword by Peter Johnson, which do you think I expect to do better?

Sure the Brescia may out perform a given Type XII, but comparing one particular sword to a class of swords is not a direct comparison. You have a class of weapons, and then within that class the skills of any individual maker also bears out. As Christian said, the Durer and Munich are virtually identical, yet the former cuts better - it has better edge geometry.

The simple truth is that blade morphology is not a "meme", there is a clear, well known reason why blades have the shape that they do, and again, you can read the words of experts to verify that. Nothing I said is radical or unusual. There is a reason rondel daggers emphasize thrusting and are shaped the way they are, likewise rapiers or smallswords, and there is a reason why kenjutsu, which focuses on the cut, has a weapon with a gradual curve.

Cheers,

Greg

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Jean,

I agree with most of your post, including your last sentiment. I'd far rather see people doing Mike's cuts than some of the silly show-off stuff that's online.

My critique arises from a) what I feel is an over-stressing of full blows and b) my opinion that a full blow from above followed by a full blow from below doesn't represent any possible reality. Liechtenauer says to approach striking the head or chest. Given that, there's no way you're going cleanly all the way through, from upper right diagonally to lower left, in a fashion would allow the 2nd blow.

Even that doesn't mean the exercise is useless though. But to me it's important to realize where a cutting exercise is just that, and adjust its relevance and importance in the overall training regime.

Regarding bravery in publishing interpretation....I suppose there's an element of that. But, from my perspective, the error bars get smaller as we go. Within a year of coming out with "Secrets" I had a LOT of stuff I'd wished I done differently. But after several years since publishing "Fighting...", I have far fewer regrets. And I think this is because the knowledge base has grown and many basics are established. Few people argue about what a Zwerchhau is these days; instead, we debate how to do one most efficiency, focusing on subtleties. I think that's a pretty good place to be in right now. So, yes, some bravery is required, but less and less all the time.

Cheers,

CHT

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Greg Mele]

Jean,

When you want to assert a position that says that the writings of arms and armour scholars, weapon makers, swordsmen who teach living traditions and used swords in battle (be that Burton, Lonnergan, Yagyu Muneori, whomever) are in era on a fundamental principle, then the burden falls to *you* to give the evidence that supports that. Personal opinion, test-cutting with a few replicas and saying "I don't think so" really doesn't count - which, of course, is what you just told me. The difference is that my comments are the accepted paradigm, you are the one challenging that - good scholarship says *based on what*? I have no problem with your asserting this, but doing so without precise evidence really gives nothing to go on besides "it is all opinion" and therefore equal, and that isn't true.

Best,

Greg

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Timo Nieminen]

[Greg Mele]

[Michael Edelson]

I have an opinion on this, based on experimentation, cutting training, and knowledge accumulated from people with more experience than me as well as from various texts on the subject.

There are two factors to cutting: hacking and slicing. The hack is the force and velocity of impact of the edge into the target that bites straight in, the slice is the drawing of the sword along the target that severs. Both combine to create an effective cut. A cut that involves mostly the hack will penetrate deeply into some media (e.g. flesh) while not at all into other media (even a few layers of cloth can stop it). A cut that involves mostly the slice, to grossly simplify matters, is kind of the opposite. It can get through some media (e.g. linen, silk, etc.) better, but does not penetrate deeply into a target.


What helps a "hack":

1. Leading with the point (ie the part of the sword you want to impact the target) as opposed to striking with the point at an angle to the target.
2. Velocity.
3. Edge aligned perfectly with the target.
4. Stiffness (flexibility will absorb some of the impact force and distort the blade in the target requiring more energy to keep moving).
5. Mass at the impact point. The more mass, the more momentum it has, the more energy it has to move deeper.
6. Shape. The thicker the sword, the more resitance it will have to overcome to keep moving, but the stiffer it will be.
7. Length, because it increases velocity at the tip. But length can also hurt factor 4.

I would list curvature, because it presents less of the edge to the target at any given time, but it reduces factor 1, which has a greater effect, and depending on the degree of curvature, can reduce factor 5.

What helps a "slice": (I prefer the term "draw")

1. The movement of the edge along the target. This can be the result of curvature or the hands of the operator, or a combination. Curvature helps this, reverse curvature hurts it unless some sort of technique is used to take advantage of it.
2. Edge aligned perfectly with the target.
3. Stiffness. A distorted sword shape moves some of the edge off of alignment and may even turn it partially sideways to the direction of motion.
4. Length. The longer the sword, the more you have to draw along the target without having to strike too close to the hilt (which hurts velocity).

A katana cuts better than a longsword becaue it is stiffer, not because it is curved. What it gains in slicing power it loses in hacking power. Straight or almost straight katana, in my experience, cut no worse than curved ones. It also cuts better than a kriegsmesser, unless those weapons have sufficiently more mass at the impatct point to overcome their greater flexibility, which they often do. However, the curve of the katana may improve its cutting against certain targets, such as people wearing silk, because slicing works better against textiles than does hacking. So against some target types, the katana cuts better because it is stiffer and because it is curved.

Some things are complicated, because when you adjust something to make it cut better, that adjustment can affect other properties that can make it cut worse.

For example:

The length of a sword works for and against a cut. A shorter sword is stiffer, but develops less velocity at the tip. There is a sweet spot, naturally, which also depends on thickness.

The wider and thinner the sword, the less resistance it has to penetration, but the more flexible it becomes, which distorts it's shape and makes cutting harder. This is why I believe type XII and XIII swords are generally technologically inferior to the later, stiffer designes, such as the XVI or XIV.

Curvature can work against a sword because it descreases hacking to increase slicing. This would make it more effective against certain media at the expense of penetration and "damage."

A saber is curved, doesn't have much mass, but can be stiff. A katana is typically curved a bit less, which helps hacking, and typically has more mass near the point, which is why they typically cut better.

So those are my views on sword design. It's a complicated thing with no clear cut rules. Some sword types are generally inferior to others, but the reasons may not be what you'd expect.

[Jean Henri Chandler]

Greg,

I have a question for you. Why do you think broad double-edged cutting swords dominated infantry warfare in Europe for over 1000 years if curved swords or sabers cut better?