Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Asian Swords vs European Swords and Swordsmanship Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
Author Message
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Sun 06 Nov, 2005 4:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Oh, and for whatever it's worth, if you use a cruciform hilted longsword with katana techniques, you'll tend to clock yourself in the head with that cross guard a lot. Happy The techniques are more similar than different, but they are still definately different.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bob Burns




Location: South Indianapolis IN
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 112 books

Posts: 1,019

PostPosted: Sun 06 Nov, 2005 9:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks Bill, that is very interesting, I suppose too that because of firearms making armor obsolete, this also opened the door for the saber? This is a question in the manner of a question and not a statement in question form. Meaning, I am looking to learn here.

This has been very interesting to me and it sounds obvious to me that this was a previously heated debate, I was never looking for a debate, just some feedback from people that know a whole lot more than I do on the 2 main focus points. Crossguard vs no crossguard and double edged vs single edged.

It also made a lot of sense to me about the statement that even if a person were to wear a basket hilt, it was of no protection to the forearms. So thanks to all, you have helped me once again!

Once again, I sure am grateful for this incredible website, this website is an enormous help to me in addition to meeting other people who love swords as much as I do! Yep, at the age of 47 I learned for the first time that I had a very deep love for high quality European swords! How this escaped me for so many years I do not know, perhaps because before coming upon A&A at the Renaissance Fair, all I'd ever seen were these cheap swords.

Anyway, I love being a part of this obsession we all share!

Happy Collecting,

Bob
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Taylor Ellis




PostPosted: Mon 07 Nov, 2005 12:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Bob Burns wrote:
I had a feeling this may have been discussed in the past. I was focusing not on martial arts styles, I was focusing on the sword style. Double edged straight vs single edged curved and crossguard vs little or no crossguard, were the main focus points. I was not and will not touch the martial arts topic again, that was not the issue. Although I am very familiar with the UFC, I will end there.

I just feel that a double edged straight sword with a crossguard would be far superior to a single edged curved sword with no crossguard. That was the focus.

Thanks,

Bob


Hey Bob,
I think you have to take styles into account (though we can leave the modern comparisons out if you want). It's simply more important than if your sword is straight or not. You can use Silver's techniques with a curved or straight sword, just like the German sword arts and the messers they used.
View user's profile Send private message
Jack Yang




Location: maryland
Joined: 24 Mar 2007

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Fri 04 May, 2007 6:38 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

huh, I see a battle here... now, when we are talking about history, i am less learned than most of you. but here, we are talking about grading weapons and techniques, I think I'll post a long one:

it seems to me though, that both asian swords and swordsmanship are better than the Eurpoeans'. First thing, martial art in India is much older than any eurpoean forms, even the chinese shaolin martial arts that developed out of the Indian martial arts are over 1500 years old, are thus much more developed than any eurpoean forms still being taught today. it might be true that a lot of asian martial arts are very different from their original forms, a lot of those performance schools teaches competitional-marital arts, which are merely 'for show', but there are also developements, like the invention of aikido, jikuando, etc, that made improvements based off the original forms. So what if the martial arts today are different? they are better than before. :P
As for the weaponry, the chinese had been making steel stuff since the first century. the fold steel process developed in Japan out matched the eurpoean stuff (you can find on youtube.com a clip showing a katana froged in the traditional method cutting a bullet in half, and another katana getting hit by machine gun bullets 7 times on the same spot before it broke). As for the hand guards, the asians are taught not use those. the guards present on katanas, daos, jians, etc are enough for their purpose, which is to protect the hand from the 'sliding cuts' with out limiting agility. In Eurpoean styles, the fighters can use their cross guards aggressively, pushing away eneymy swords while in a dead lock, or locking it while winding the sword.... but in the eastern styles, such moves are avoided. Cross guards, to my opinion, is like a cruch for the noobs untill you can use it aggresively and effectively, and it also provides the enemy for a place to grab if he wants to disarm you or hinder your movements. and also taken into your mind that India is a part of Asia, and I think you'd be dumb to tell me that Indian swords have no hand guards. And how would a straight sword be so much superior to a curved one? the curved sword is much better for slicing, and if used right, and trust beneath armor plates easily ( The tsuki strike in kendo is meant to have this kind of effect, the trust would hit the chest plate and stop, the curved tip would then slid up beneath the throat peice of the helmet.) They also allows you to push the back of the blade, and use half-swording-like techniques.

I dont sweat in saying that the Eurpoean systems are inferior to the Asian systems (I'm talking in general, of course), because I am a student of both Eurpoean and Asian sword fighting. I have learned some wu-shu sword fighting (though i was unable to continue), and am training in kendo and fencing (both with the foil and the more "realistic" weapons, though I am kind of a noob at the latter). You are welcome to argue more profoundly with me on this topic, but
Also note, the different swords are used differently. While the sturdy, well guarded, and well balanced European sword might suit your style better, other swords are better for other uses.

Also, I saw some comments about monk dances. who ever said it, would you want to take on a shaolin monk with your western stuff?
As for the different types of swords, the japanese are may appear to have clinged to the katanas, that's because they thought they've found the most perfectly balanced design for a sword (read the ledgends on the creation of the katana and you'll understand that part of the psychology), but the japanese are not short at all on making new weapons, just take a look at all the weird stuff the ninjas came up with--and they're effective too, for their purpose. I shall make an example: the sickle and chain combo (http://www.shingan.ro/images/kusari_gama.jpg ), the chain is used for initiation, throwing the weight at the enemy will cause him to flinch or dodge, and for entangling the enemy's sword or pole arm after the initiantion. Once the enemy's weapon is trapped, the ninja can go in for the kill with the blade of the sickle. Now what's the equivalent to that in European weapons?

unfortunately for me, i must go to bed now Worried , but i seriously hope that some of you will take some time thinking and trying out the different stuff before you make a judgement.
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
John Wehr





Joined: 25 Apr 2007

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Fri 04 May, 2007 9:45 pm    Post subject: First Post         Reply with quote

I'll get into this debate.

First off, on the Katana's ability to "split" a bullet twain, and take seven machine gun shots in a row before breaking. Youtube is not the end all, be all of "truthiness". Mythbusters in their show took on the "sword slicing through another sword/ through a machine gun" myth and debunked both. A sword may snap in two if hit with enough force, but it will not be "sliced" neither would a red hot glowing machine gun barrel. The myth of the Katana has grown to outrageous details. Were Samurai excellent Warriors? Yes. Were they master swordsmen. Many were. Does that mean they were invincible? No way. And the tip of a Katana isn't the finest part of the weapon. I've seen many ancient Katana's where the tip of the sword has been broken off cleanly. If you face a Samurai against a knight in plate, your not going to come up against Longsword vs. Katana. More than likely it would be Katana vs. Poleaxe, depending on the time period.

Against a person with a rapier? The Samurai wouldn't stand a chance. The true rapier users (musketeers, etc) were quite proficient with the blade (Thus the continuance and transformation from a actual art into a sport) that it has lasted into the Olympic sport. The Rapier is far too fast for a Samurai to keep up with and the movements (lunge, the flicking parries, etc.) would be alien.

But when it comes down to it, we really don't know who would of been better or how.

Japan had a series of on again, off again warfare between clans with quite similar armies. They essentially fought themselves for hundreds of years.

Europe fought just as many wars as Japan but each culture was so unique that developments between them were quite drastic from Italian to German to French to English.

Each to his own, however.
View user's profile Send private message
Robin Smith




Location: Louisiana
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Likes: 4 pages
Reading list: 17 books

Posts: 746

PostPosted: Fri 04 May, 2007 11:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jack Yang wrote:
huh, I see a battle here... now, when we are talking about history, i am less learned than most of you. but here, we are talking about grading weapons and techniques, I think I'll post a long one:

it seems to me though, that both asian swords and swordsmanship are better than the Eurpoeans'. First thing, martial art in India is much older than any eurpoean forms, even the chinese shaolin martial arts that developed out of the Indian martial arts are over 1500 years old, are thus much more developed than any eurpoean forms still being taught today. it might be true that a lot of asian martial arts are very different from their original forms, a lot of those performance schools teaches competitional-marital arts, which are merely 'for show', but there are also developements, like the invention of aikido, jikuando, etc, that made improvements based off the original forms. So what if the martial arts today are different? they are better than before. :P
As for the weaponry, the chinese had been making steel stuff since the first century. the fold steel process developed in Japan out matched the eurpoean stuff (you can find on youtube.com a clip showing a katana froged in the traditional method cutting a bullet in half, and another katana getting hit by machine gun bullets 7 times on the same spot before it broke). As for the hand guards, the asians are taught not use those. the guards present on katanas, daos, jians, etc are enough for their purpose, which is to protect the hand from the 'sliding cuts' with out limiting agility. In Eurpoean styles, the fighters can use their cross guards aggressively, pushing away eneymy swords while in a dead lock, or locking it while winding the sword.... but in the eastern styles, such moves are avoided. Cross guards, to my opinion, is like a cruch for the noobs untill you can use it aggresively and effectively, and it also provides the enemy for a place to grab if he wants to disarm you or hinder your movements. and also taken into your mind that India is a part of Asia, and I think you'd be dumb to tell me that Indian swords have no hand guards. And how would a straight sword be so much superior to a curved one? the curved sword is much better for slicing, and if used right, and trust beneath armor plates easily ( The tsuki strike in kendo is meant to have this kind of effect, the trust would hit the chest plate and stop, the curved tip would then slid up beneath the throat peice of the helmet.) They also allows you to push the back of the blade, and use half-swording-like techniques.

I dont sweat in saying that the Eurpoean systems are inferior to the Asian systems (I'm talking in general, of course), because I am a student of both Eurpoean and Asian sword fighting. I have learned some wu-shu sword fighting (though i was unable to continue), and am training in kendo and fencing (both with the foil and the more "realistic" weapons, though I am kind of a noob at the latter). You are welcome to argue more profoundly with me on this topic, but
Also note, the different swords are used differently. While the sturdy, well guarded, and well balanced European sword might suit your style better, other swords are better for other uses.

Also, I saw some comments about monk dances. who ever said it, would you want to take on a shaolin monk with your western stuff?
As for the different types of swords, the japanese are may appear to have clinged to the katanas, that's because they thought they've found the most perfectly balanced design for a sword (read the ledgends on the creation of the katana and you'll understand that part of the psychology), but the japanese are not short at all on making new weapons, just take a look at all the weird stuff the ninjas came up with--and they're effective too, for their purpose. I shall make an example: the sickle and chain combo (http://www.shingan.ro/images/kusari_gama.jpg ), the chain is used for initiation, throwing the weight at the enemy will cause him to flinch or dodge, and for entangling the enemy's sword or pole arm after the initiantion. Once the enemy's weapon is trapped, the ninja can go in for the kill with the blade of the sickle. Now what's the equivalent to that in European weapons?

unfortunately for me, i must go to bed now Worried , but i seriously hope that some of you will take some time thinking and trying out the different stuff before you make a judgement.

I have serious doubts as the the historical existence of the Kusari-Gama. I've never seen any reference to them predating Stephen Hayes. This is the same guy who popularized the idea of Ninja using shuriken and a straight-edged "ninja-to", both of which are complete historical bunk. As I said in a previous post the vast majority of what is "known" about ninja is likely a fabrication. I'm not disputing the existence of men like Hattori Hanzo and Yagyuu Jubei. I'm just saying they certainly weren't black clad warriors sneaking around with Kusari-Gama, knowledgeable of 37 ways to kill you with a chopstick. Wink

A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Sat 05 May, 2007 12:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jack-

Below are some excerpts from an essay I wrote about the 'superiority of Samurai'.

Superiority of the Curved Edge

When cutting a curved target, a curved sword is a minute improvement in terms of force per area. It is this concentration of force that results from the edge curving away from the target that grants a curved blade its supposed superiority in the cut. The difference is too small to account for the fearsome reputation that the katana has.

Additionally, plenty of modern cutting demos have shown that straight bladed swords can consistently cleave all the way to the bone. The mass graves at Wisby and Towton provide even more evidence of straight swords cutting all the way to the bone and even through it. I don't know what more can be expected than cutting to or through the bone. I don't see a compelling reason to need to cut deeper. The limb in question would be rendered useless, blood loss would be catastrophic and the medicine of the era poorly set-up to treat such a wound.

Further, a great many makers of curved swords seemed not to have considered the curve a great aid to cutting. The part of a katana that cuts is the least curved portion of the sword. The center of percussion of a saber is generally at or just below the end of the curvature thereby minimizing the curvature of a slashing attack.

However, I've seen several descriptions from period sources of the advantages of curved swords from horseback. While not all cavalry used (back-) curved swords, almost all such weapons were used by cavalry.

The Katana

The katana's weight was generally in the same range as a longsword. The katana is a 40" long piece of steel, rather thick on the back side, whereas western swords were typically a little longer and with more distal taper. These are of course generalizations of equipment made by a great many individuals, over a great period of time and for a variety of situations. But both sword forms are made of about the same length of the same material, and as such can be expected to have similar range of weights.

As described in this doctoral thesis(near the bottom) the katana is made of the same material as European swords and in a non-unique manner. Therefore we cannot expect it to possess greatly different capabilities than other swords. Again the notion that it could outperform a European sword is not supported by the evidence.

There are no recorded incidents of katanas cutting a European sword in combat conditions. However, there are recorded incidents of Scottish broadswords breaking English smallswords in the 17th or 18th century. The only incident desrcibing a katana used against a European sword was against smallswords (not longswords). This was in a peaceful demonstration wherein two of the swords of a Dutch trader were placed in fixed mounts and then broken with katana attacks. Japanese tales do tell of plenty of katanas that broke while in use. No period sources describe any expectation that a katana should expected to simply cleave in two a 'lesser' blade.

The bullet thing

A .45 cal pistol round was fired at a katana and the katana didn't break. A small blob of a soft metal(lead) that was softened (by heating from the propellant gases of the gun) was hurled at high speeds at the sword. A small blob of softened soft metal is not at all like hardened steel armor. Also the test was not done with a European, straight sword, or any other type of sword or repeated. Its informative value on the battlefield capabilities of the sword is nil and its value in comparing the relative abilities of different swords is also nil. (The bullet may have been jacketed in a harder metal: copper. But copper is still not hard enough that armour was ever made out of it, and it was still heat softened by the propellant blast)

By no means was the katana a bad sword. Quite the contrary. I merely wish to dispel the notion that the katana or any other design besides the Medieval European sword forms are superior to all other swords. Straight and curved blade designs each have their own advantages and drawbacks. Most cultures actually used both side-by-side. Presumably for a reason.

* * *

As an addendum to the youTube video of bullet versus katana, I ask you, "How did the European sword fare in the test?"
The point being that no comparison can be made if only one item is tested.

The age of the styles is a questionable assertion since Europeans were fighting with swords for a couple thousand years. It was only written down in detail beginning in the 14th century. It would be foolish to think that the style was new at that time.

Jack Yang wrote:
In Eurpoean styles, the fighters can use their cross guards aggressively, pushing away eneymy swords while in a dead lock, or locking it while winding the sword . . . Cross guards, to my opinion, is like a cruch for the noobs untill you can use it aggresively and effectively, and it also provides the enemy for a place to grab if he wants to disarm you or hinder your movements.

This is not the way the crossguard is used in HES, it is the way it is used in Hollywood movies. Grabbing the cross is not a meaningful part of the historical longsword styles. The crossguard provides necessary protection the ochs guard, an essential element of winding, and which does not appear in other sword styles that I am aware of.

Folding steel was invented by the Celts and transmitted to the East. The Europeans had developed superior steel production by the 2nd millenium making the folding process unnecessary. The Japanese used the technique because it was a necessity for refining the ore that they had available.

Slices with the longsword were an explicit part of the German style so we can safely assume that these straight swords were good at slicing.

I find the assertion of the generalized superiority of the Katana or Eastern Martial Arts to be unsupported by the evidence. If you can present information more reliable than youTube than please do.

-Steven

Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bram Verbeek





Joined: 27 Mar 2007

Posts: 217

PostPosted: Sat 05 May, 2007 5:44 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I realised in boffer combat (not all of us can afford nice armors, yet many of us like to have contact sparring) that for me it was better to fight sword and shield even though I started out in ken-juitsu, I even beat my previous teacher in sparring sword and shield versus katana (he was not used to fighting sword and shield), but for Daniël, who started out in european combat, asian styles were more effective, and because he regularly trained against sword and shield, he could hold his own against it quite often. Apart from height, I think the main difference between us is that I am heavily right handed (and legged) while Daniël is more ambidextrous and his legs are more alike in speed and strength, (though I do not know the official word for that). This means that I have more virtue by using an unequal set and sliding out with my right foot while daniël will want to use his whole body. This also means that my right hand strikes are more decisive and fast than daniëls would be.

I myself think that the differences in actual fighting with katana and longsword are undervalued, I think they are fundamentally different, and one technique should not be done with the sword belonging to the other technique. What does not change is that both attack soft spots in armor or generate enough momentum that it wouldn't matter (a rachhau and the vertical strong stike of ken juitsu (name?) do not seem overly elegant, and are aimed at the head). Many ken juitsu techniques stab at throats, slice wrists and cut other weak points, if you try, you will find out that european styles naturally turn out there too. So, if you would pit a katana against european armor, pit it against the joints in it, rather than the larger surfaces (and vice versa).
View user's profile Send private message
Vincent Le Chevalier




Location: Paris, France
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 870

PostPosted: Sat 05 May, 2007 5:46 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hey, since this old horse is rising from the dead again, I thought I'd take a shot as well Big Grin

Jack Yang wrote:
it seems to me though, that both asian swords and swordsmanship are better than the Eurpoeans'. First thing, martial art in India is much older than any eurpoean forms, even the chinese shaolin martial arts that developed out of the Indian martial arts are over 1500 years old, are thus much more developed than any eurpoean forms still being taught today.


Well I'd agree that Eastern martial arts were better transmitted (at least intended to be). However, it does not mean superiority at all. It's not like people in Europe were not fighting at that time either, and I would think that efficient techniques are something you would pass on to the next generation... It's just that in Europe, it never became part of the religion, and so it disappeared when it was not useful anymore.

Just looking at rapier manuals, you can see principles that mirror quite exactly what is taught in asian arts (and here I speak as a practitioner of kenjutsu). The difference being that they are clearly described instead of being hidden by the hierarchy Wink Bottom line, we are all humans, what works in Asia works in Europe, and was fairly obvious after a few generations of fighting (thanks Darwin).

Jack Yang wrote:
it might be true that a lot of asian martial arts are very different from their original forms, a lot of those performance schools teaches competitional-marital arts, which are merely 'for show', but there are also developements, like the invention of aikido, jikuando, etc, that made improvements based off the original forms. So what if the martial arts today are different? they are better than before. :P


Better? I would not say that aikido is better in martial effectiveness than its ancestor aiki-jutsu. Better for self-development, yes, certainly... Depends on what you are looking for. Aikido, Judo, most of the "do" forms that developed over the old "jutsu", were not improvements in martial theory. They were made as peaceful arts, sport or philosophy, designed for practitioners that would not rely on those skills to survive on the battlefield.

Jack Yang wrote:
I dont sweat in saying that the Eurpoean systems are inferior to the Asian systems (I'm talking in general, of course), because I am a student of both Eurpoean and Asian sword fighting.


Funny, my situation is similar, and yet I don't share your opinion Happy I think the arts were equivalent in their days of use. I believe oriental arts were better preserved, but also became kind of "fossilized", each art staying in its corner without much exchange. And I fear oriental arts will now go the same way as occidental did, and become dance or sports.

Jack Yang wrote:
Also, I saw some comments about monk dances. who ever said it, would you want to take on a shaolin monk with your western stuff?


Comparing the level of practitioners is not comparing the value of the techniques. These guys (at least some of them) train since childhood in a structured setting. Most WMA students are more or less self-taught. Now try to compare people with about the same level of expertise and formation, and I don't think you'll reach any positive conclusion.

And for the record, I don't believe for a second that if a shaolin monk was involved in a fight, the dance-like routines they do for show would come up. After all there are many kung-fu styles that are much more direct... But unsurprisingly you don't get to see those in demos with flying aluminium swords.

Jack Yang wrote:
i seriously hope that some of you will take some time thinking and trying out the different stuff before you make a judgement.


You should not make the assumption that because some do not share your opinion, it must be because they have not considered the subject for long or tried different arts. These kind of discussions have been going on for a long time now, so it's not like no one ever gave a good thought about all that before.

Regards

--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Josh Warren




Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Joined: 01 Nov 2006

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Sat 05 May, 2007 7:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Don't you think you're being just a little bit condescending, Jack? Do you have any evidence beyond your own opinions to back up your claims?
Non Concedo
View user's profile Send private message
Bob Burns




Location: South Indianapolis IN
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 112 books

Posts: 1,019

PostPosted: Sun 06 May, 2007 9:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Some very interesting posts! I still do not have an Asian sword but am considering the Hanwei Tiger Elite Katana or the Hanwei Song Sword for 2008. Would have to be one or the other and I have not yet really investigated the qualities of either sword, so I don't know if I'd buy either of them yet.
From what I understand, in the time period of the medieval era, European sword steel was inferior to both Arabian and Asian swords and the Europeans brought back many Arabian swords back to Europe on their return from the crusades hoping to discover the secrets but were not successful.
As to the fighting styles, as in all martial arts, both have their strengths and weaknesses. It's been a couple of years since I've posted in this thread that I started, I have learned a few things in that time but I sure do need to learn much more!
Humor wise, it was interesting to read that I mentioned I had over 20 books, now I have over 100 books and a dozen very high quality production swords from Arms & Armor and Albion Swords.
I guess I am rather obsessed! Laughing Out Loud

Thanks for all the interesting posts!

Bob
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Sun 06 May, 2007 10:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Bob Burns wrote:

From what I understand, in the time period of the medieval era, European sword steel was inferior to both Arabian and Asian swords and the Europeans brought back many Arabian swords back to Europe on their return from the crusades hoping to discover the secrets but were not successful.


The Indian wootz steel was superior in many regards but this was due to the particular impurities of the mines, tungsten and vanadium, thereby forming what would be an advanced alloy if done intentionally. When those mines were exhausted in the 17th century the Indians stopped being able to produce wootz steel. The wootz steel was traded to Arabs who processed it in Damascus and sold it to Europeans, which is how the name, Damascus steel, came about. Multiple modern experimental archaeometallurgy experiments have produced wootz steel.

So the Arabians were using superior steel bought from Asians. I am not aware of any source in Asia, besides Indian wootz, that produced superior steel. Certainly the Japanese were not. The ore the Japanese were using was so full of impurities (like sand) that the folding process was the only refining method sufficient for making sword grade steel.

It seems that almost all of the techniques for iron production used throughout Eurasia were originally developed by the Celts in Central Europe in the first couple of centuries CE. From there the ideas diffused across the continent.

-Steven

Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Duosi Ji





Joined: 05 May 2007

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Sun 06 May, 2007 11:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I would assess them from a straight battlefield perspective. The term "Asian" really encompasses a range far too wide to generalize. For example, in China, there was no double edged straight swords in the European sense in the Middle ages. The dao was the only sort weapon that was used by soldiers and generals alike. But the dao is easier to use than a sword, because it only can cut and chop. Against an European longsword it might lack the reach and thrusting functionality, but it was easier to wield. Also that the shield was often used in conjunction with the dao and Western swords. So it's kind of hard to compare directly, but I agree that having the ability to thrust as an option is better than not. When the Spanish fought the Aztecs, the muskets and crossbows were too few in number to be of significant use. I would say the Castilian swords men were at least as crucial as the musketeers (arquebusiers?) were. It's hard to imagine that a dozen arquebuses and crossbows can mow down a crowd tens of thousands in number. So the swordsmen would have done most of the killing. And in this respect the distinct advantage that the Castilian swordsmen had over the Aztecs was the light weight of the swords and the ability to thrust. They could stab their opponents much quicker than their opponents could get into range(single handed chopping clubs had a shorter range than the thrusting rapiers), lift their heavy wood-obsidian swords(I remember they were like 10 pounds) and then chop down.
View user's profile Send private message
Bob Burns




Location: South Indianapolis IN
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 112 books

Posts: 1,019

PostPosted: Sun 06 May, 2007 12:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thank you very much Steve and Duosi! The quality of the ore used was very informative for me in regard to the Asiatic swords!
The obsidian filled parallel grooves on the sides of these clubs used by the Aztecs were quite useless in combat against the conquistador armed with a sword. Not only in that these clubs were much heavier, but any good sword strike against these clubs destroyed the weapon. This particular area of history I've seen some historically accurate analogies.
Upon sword strike to obsidion club the majority of the obsidian would be knocked out of the grooves and there would be a good cut into the wood. While the obsidian edges, were as sharp or sharper than surgical steel and would cut very deeply on any successful cut to the flesh, it was quite a primitive weapon compared to the European sword and was no match in combat, compounded by the fact that it was so heavy and the Aztecs having no body armor or shields with which to defend against a European sword.

Very interesting about the final quality of steel in the East as opposed to the European swords!

Thanks very much!

Bob
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Josh Warren




Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Joined: 01 Nov 2006

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Sun 06 May, 2007 12:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It should also be remembered that not all steel used by middle eastern warriors was "Damascus" steel--that was only for a privileged few.

If anything, the Arabs seemed to be quite impressed by the effectiveness of European war-gear, as we read in the Memoirs of Usamah ibn Munqidh and elsewhere...

Non Concedo
View user's profile Send private message
Duosi Ji





Joined: 05 May 2007

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Sun 06 May, 2007 12:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

In the article

Ottoman Military technology: The metallurgy of Turkish armor

Alan Williams reported his observation that good quality European steel (of the era) were often harder than the Damascus steel. So I don't know which era is implied in this thread but in the 16th century Europe certainly had better steel than the renowned Damascus steel.
View user's profile Send private message
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Sun 06 May, 2007 7:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jack Yang wrote:
huh, I see a battle here... now, when we are talking about history, i am less learned than most of you. but here, we are talking about grading weapons and techniques, I think I'll post a long one:

it seems to me though, that both asian swords and swordsmanship are better than the Eurpoeans'. First thing, martial art in India is much older than any eurpoean forms, even the chinese shaolin martial arts that developed out of the Indian martial arts are over 1500 years old, are thus much more developed than any eurpoean forms still being taught today. it might be true that a lot of asian martial arts are very different from their original forms, a lot of those performance schools teaches competitional-marital arts, which are merely 'for show', but there are also developements, like the invention of aikido, jikuando, etc, that made improvements based off the original forms. So what if the martial arts today are different? they are better than before. :P


Jack,

You seem to be operating under several misapprehensions. The first is that you appear to be assuming that the European martial tradition goes back to the Middle Ages. It goes back at least as far as Ancient Greece. But the age of a martial art tradition is not particularly relevant to the discussion. What matters is whether they're effective or not.

It is a mistake to assume that because an art has more time to "develop", it will therefore be better. The historical reality indicates the exact opposite is true- as both European and east Asian martial arts styles became increasingly divorced from the reality of violent hand to hand combat, and from the reality of fighting with melee weapons, they became more stylized, ritualized, or sportified. I'm not contesting that there haven't been some developments in martial arts which have occurred recently, but developments which actually improve martial efficacy are fewer and farther between than you suggest, especially given that we live in a world largely seperated from the realities of hand-to-hand armed conflict.


Quote:
As for the weaponry, the chinese had been making steel stuff since the first century. the fold steel process developed in Japan out matched the eurpoean stuff (you can find on youtube.com a clip showing a katana froged in the traditional method cutting a bullet in half, and another katana getting hit by machine gun bullets 7 times on the same spot before it broke).


I might remind you that the Japanese used the folding steel method because of the relatively limited supply of iron in Japan, and because of the low quality iron they had. The Europeans had folded steel too, in the Viking era. Eventually, they stopped using it because they had enough iron and there were other, less time consuming ways to make it.

Quote:
As for the hand guards, the asians are taught not use those. the guards present on katanas, daos, jians, etc are enough for their purpose, which is to protect the hand from the 'sliding cuts' with out limiting agility. In Eurpoean styles, the fighters can use their cross guards aggressively, pushing away eneymy swords while in a dead lock, or locking it while winding the sword.... but in the eastern styles, such moves are avoided. Cross guards, to my opinion, is like a cruch for the noobs untill you can use it aggresively and effectively, and it also provides the enemy for a place to grab if he wants to disarm you or hinder your movements.


One of the main reasons why medieval swords have cross guards is to protect your knuckles from a shield. Have you ever had someone hit your hand with a wooden shield as hard as they possibly could to knock your sword out of the way? I can assure you that you'd change your opinion on sword guards very rapidly if that was the case.

Again, you also seem to be labouring under misapprehensions about how European swords were used. Pushing in a dead lock as you describe is utterly suicidal and accomplishes nothing. Nor do you "lock" with your crossguard when winding against a blade- doing so would only help your enemy because it would limit the reach of your point. Sword guards are used, in addition to what I mentioned above, to help cover the upper openings with strikes such as the Zwerchhaw, or to stifle an enemy's attack before they were able to fully generate a cut, and things of this nature. As Steven mentioned, what you have described is not consistent with historical reality.

Frankly, arguing that sword guards are a crutch for noobs is like telling a down hill skier that ski poles are for beginners.



Quote:
and also taken into your mind that India is a part of Asia, and I think you'd be dumb to tell me that Indian swords have no hand guards. And how would a straight sword be so much superior to a curved one? the curved sword is much better for slicing, and if used right, and trust beneath armor plates easily ( The tsuki strike in kendo is meant to have this kind of effect, the trust would hit the chest plate and stop, the curved tip would then slid up beneath the throat peice of the helmet.) They also allows you to push the back of the blade, and use half-swording-like techniques.


You seem to forget the immense variety of European blades. Curved swords? We've got falchions, messers, sabres. Single handed swords for use with a shield or buckler? You could go with Type X, Xa, XI, XIa, XII, XIIIb, XIV, XV, XVI, XVIII. Swords specialized for harnischfechten? Check out an Oakeshott Type XVII. Agile swords for Blossfechten? Try a Type XVa or XVIa. War sword dedicated to cutting? How about an Oakeshott Type XIIa or XIIIa. Want a lightning fast dueling sword? Go for a rapier.

The fact of the matter is that a straight sword is not necessarily superior to a curved sword, nor is the curved sword necessarily superior to a straight sword. Both have advantages. Curved swords can slice better, and they can cut a bit more easily. But we know that straight swords are capable of creating horrendous cutting wounds and nasty slices as well. A katana can thrust, but not as well as the specialized European straight swords. Katanas have one cutting edge, whereas straight swords have two, which means that Katana users can easily be deceived by a Krumphaw, Schiller, or Zwerchhaws thrown in rapid succession to the four openings. European swords could also be inverted and used as battering weapons against full plate; to my knowledge, no eastern weapon was ever used for this purpose.

Quote:
I dont sweat in saying that the Eurpoean systems are inferior to the Asian systems (I'm talking in general, of course), because I am a student of both Eurpoean and Asian sword fighting. I have learned some wu-shu sword fighting (though i was unable to continue), and am training in kendo and fencing (both with the foil and the more "realistic" weapons, though I am kind of a noob at the latter). You are welcome to argue more profoundly with me on this topic, but
Also note, the different swords are used differently. While the sturdy, well guarded, and well balanced European sword might suit your style better, other swords are better for other uses.


Considering that you obviously are not a student of historical European martial arts, and you clearly know little about them, I don't think you are in a good position to argue for the superiority of Asian arts based upon experience.

Quote:
Also, I saw some comments about monk dances. who ever said it, would you want to take on a shaolin monk with your western stuff?As for the different types of swords, the japanese are may appear to have clinged to the katanas, that's because they thought they've found the most perfectly balanced design for a sword (read the ledgends on the creation of the katana and you'll understand that part of the psychology), but the japanese are not short at all on making new weapons, just take a look at all the weird stuff the ninjas came up with--and they're effective too, for their purpose.


What you've mentioned here does not even come close to the immense variety and innovation found in European weapons. Sorry, but a couple of other "ninja" swords doesn't really cut it.

Quote:
I shall make an example: the sickle and chain combo (http://www.shingan.ro/images/kusari_gama.jpg ), the chain is used for initiation, throwing the weight at the enemy will cause him to flinch or dodge, and for entangling the enemy's sword or pole arm after the initiantion. Once the enemy's weapon is trapped, the ninja can go in for the kill with the blade of the sickle. Now what's the equivalent to that in European weapons?


There is no equivalent. Does there need to be? Anyone who faced polearms, whether they were Japanese, Chinese, Middle Eastern, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germanic Tribes or Europeans had ways of dealing with them and overcoming them.

As others said before, you seem to be arguing on a subject that you're not that well informed on. If you believe that Asian martial art forms are inherently "superior", that's fine, but you need better evidence and arguments to back up your assertion.
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Sun 06 May, 2007 7:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig Peters wrote:
Considering that you obviously are not a student of historical European martial arts, and you clearly know little about them, I don't think you are in a good position to argue for the superiority of Asian arts based upon experience.

As others said before, you seem to be arguing on a subject that you're not that well informed on. If you believe that Asian martial art forms are inherently "superior", that's fine, but you need better evidence and arguments to back up your assertion.


Craig,
This kind of condescending stuff has no place here.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Joe Fults




Location: Midwest
Joined: 02 Sep 2003

Posts: 3,646

PostPosted: Sun 06 May, 2007 8:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This seems to be one of those topics that always boils down to my dad is tougher than your dad, in the end.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
View user's profile Send private message
Josh Warren




Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Joined: 01 Nov 2006

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Sun 06 May, 2007 10:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Chad Arnow wrote:


Craig,
This kind of condescending stuff has no place here.


I didn't think Craig's comments were condescending at all. If that's what passes for condescension in your estimation, then this debate will be a very difficult exercise in walking on eggshells and tiptoeing around moderator sensibilities. How would you respond to him, Chad?

Non Concedo
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Asian Swords vs European Swords and Swordsmanship
Page 2 of 4 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum