[Richard Fay]

Hello again!
Falchions, messers, and other weapons such as axes and maces were indeed used by medieval knights and other warriors, but the sword took the premier place of prestige. Oakeshott seems to define the "knightly" sword as a straight, double edged weapon descended from the swords of the prehistoric Celts. He drew a line of evolution through the Roman spatha and the Viking sword. In The Sword in the Age of Chivalry, he claims, in the discussion of the hilt on the Conyer's Falchion, that the falchion is outside the scope of the book, in other words, not a "knightly" sword, even though the Conyer's Falchion is certainly a noble sword.
I think he concludes this for good reason; even though knights might have used other weapons in "real life", they wished to be depicted for all eternity with their straight, double-edged swords at their sides. Almost every knightly tomb effigy and monumental brass shows a straight sword at the knights' sides. A few, such as the early brass of Sir John D'Aubernoun (1277), and some German effigies of the Count of Orlamunde (ca. 1340-1350), Kaiser Ludwig the Bavarian (d. 1347), Heinrich of Seinshiemd (d. 1349), and Peter Kreglingerd. (d. 1365) show a lance as well as a sword, but most wished to be shown on their monuments with swords at their sides. Civilian brasses usually lack swords (and armour as well). Some bear a long-bladed baselard, but not a true knightly sword.
An interesting brass is that of Guillaume Wenemaer (c. 1325) in Ghent. He is shown holding a naked sword. He was a captain and magistrate of Ghent. I believe he was a burgher with knightly pretensions!
I think the knightly effigies and brasses could be used to further the argument that the longevity of the straight, double-edged sword had something to do with cultural traditions and symbolism.
Stay safe!

[George Hill]

[Nathan Robinson]

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

[A. Jake Storey II]

One thing I think we should remember (including myself) is time periods. Throughout history the demensions of the Katana changed. Sertin early Katanas (not sure exactly how early) were a bit longer and heavier then others. Also, it depends on the art vavered by the swordsmen. While a "soft" swordsman will yous a more curved and lighter wait Katana, the "hard" swordsman would use a thicker heavier and strater Katana. Through the Midieval ages you could see simuler changes to swords, thikaning for a cut aprouch, narowing and/or increasing the taper for a more thrust oriented strike, changing its wait.

Also, The way one would swing a heavaly curved sword to take advantage would be slightly diferent, You would move as though exacuting a reguler "hack" but by a diferent placing of wrist and elbow alow the curve of the blade to run along the target. This may not be to good against plate or chainmail armor but against a lightly armored aponent it would alow you to use less energy to get simuler efects. Like runing the edge of a nife along a stake rather then just pushing down. I don't realy think we (again, enclueding me.) should put one up as beter because they all have good points and bad. My preferenc may be for curve but thats just cause I like the feel and the way I move alows me to take advantige of it's shape.

[Joe Fults]

I have certain preferences based on the types of swords I own and play with. I observe that I cut much better with some of them than with others. If I'm not careful to keep the "I" part as a significant framing factor, it is easy to subjectively extrapolate that X is better than Y because I am better with X.

Bottom line is that observations can easily be very subjective, yet they are what we tend to found our opinions and beliefs on. Why straight instead of curved may, in the end, come down to subjective oberservations.

[Richard Fay]

Hello again!
Not to beat a dead horse, but I found another description of the knighting ceremony in Sword in Hand by Ewart Oakeshott that further emphasizes the symbolic importance played by the sword. Oakeshott describes a knighting ceremony of the 12th century, probably using the same sources that I quoted earlier, but he gives more details. By the 12th century, the ceremony became more elaborate than the simple adoubement of the earlier period. This is quoted from Oakeshott:

"On the eve of his admission to the order, the aspirant to Chivalry was solemnly stripped of his clothes by his fellow squires and put into a bath, a symbol of purification. Then he was dressed in a white tunic, emblem of purity (analogous to the chrisom of baptism); and a scarlet mantle, the emblem of nobility, and hose and shoes of black, symbolic of death and the earth in which all must eventually lie. He was girt with the white cingulum for chastity, and led to the church or the castle chapel, where all night he would keep solitary vigil in prayer, his arms lying before the altar" (your favourite part, George. I knew this was a part of it, I just question that it's the most important part). "In the morning, he would make his confession and hear Mass. Then comes the great moment. After the alleluias of the Gradual, he hands his sword to the priest, who lays it on the altar and prays for a blessing upon it" (not the armour, but the sword). "He returns it with these words": (this is the really interesting bit)

"Accipe gladium istum in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti et utaris eo in densam tuam et sancti Dei Ecclesiae et confusionem inimicorum crucis Christi ac fidei Christiannae" (My Latin knowledge is almost non-existent, but it has something to do with "accept (?) this sword in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and so on...)

"Virtue has passed into it (the sword); he receives it back from the priest and brandishes it three times, sheaths it, and hands it to his sponsor-who might be his liege lord or simply another knight, for all who received knighthood might bestow it-and makes his vow of knighthood to him. Then he is armed in his complete war-gear by his friends and attendants, but it is left to his sponsor to gird on his sword and give him the colee or accolade..."

(Of course, on the battlefield, the colee given by the lord or captain was all that was really needed to confer knighthood.)

So the sword was of more importance to the ceremony of knighthood than the armour. The armour played it's role, but the sword was held with a higher regard.

Also, I think that the fact that medieval nobles were sometimes buried with their swords, but almost never with their armour, says something about the symbolic significance and importance of the "knightly" sword. Swords were found in the tombs of Sancho IV (el Bravo) of Castile, Fernando de la Cerda, Estore Visconti, and Can Grande della Scala, to name a few. Great lords often had swords included in their funerary achievements, like the sword that once went with the scabbard that hung over the Black Prince's tomb in Canterbury Cathedral, or Henry V's famous sword. Also, sometimes lords would have themselves portrayed in civilian clothes, but bear their swords (and shields), like on the statue of Count Ekkehard and other benefactors of Naumburg Cathedral.

I think all this can suggest that the sword held a traditional, symbolic position in medieval European chivalric society. Perhaps the traditions and symbolisms were also reasons, besides the practical aspects of "cut versus thrust", that straight swords seemed to be preferred in western Europe.

I hope this wasn't too far off the topic thread!

By the way, can anyone translate the prayer for me? I would love to see a translation!

Stay safe!

[George Hill]

[Steven H]

As I've looked into the 'misconceptions' of Samurai arms and armor, and because it is a pet-peeve of mine, I would like to present some more information.

Japanese Armor Materials
Every museum description of antique Japanese armour, that I've ever come across, describes it as being made of leather, steel or both. Leather and steel were both laquered hardening the already thick rawhide used by the Japanese and water-proofing (and decorating, fashion was important) the steel. So leather, wood, steel and bamboo all look the same because of lacquer.

The simplest reference for this is Anthony J. Bryant's essay on Japanese armour construction. The audience is SCA but his credentials are very good.

I've been told of occasional references to the poorest members of Japanese society occasionally making bamboo armor for themself to be able to join the army (which generally involves free food and shelter). Any modern practictioner of tameshigiri should be able to attest to the fact that bamboo is of no regard to a proper sword strike. An accomplished student of tameshigiri is expected to be able to cut through 'flesh-like' tatami, bamboo and just as effortlessly cut the tatami on the other side. Clearly the conclusion of tameshigiri practitioners is that bamboo is of no value to armor flesh.

Cutting Steel Armor
Originally the purpose of tameshigiri was to test the sword. All swords made in an area were tested by the same swordsmen. Most swordsmen did not do tameshigiri. One of the test performed was kabuto-wari, helmet breaking. The objective of this test was to demonstrate that a sword could be slammed full force into a steel helmet and the sword not damaged. The helmet was not cleaved in two. Surviving official records of kabuto-wari indicate that a quality sword could put about a 10cm/4" cut into a helmet. (Even through the mostly intact helmet would such a blow be terribly effective on the battlefield: I assume yes. Potentially, but not consistently or quickly, lethal? I suspect yes)

The current world record for kabuto-wari is only 13cm/5". And that was under conditions totally unlike battle.

Surviving sword traditions that date to a period of time when the Japanese still regularly took to the battlefield in armor are known as kyo-ru. The kyo-ru are distinct from modern kendo. The techniques used in kyo-ru for defeating an armored opponent are very similar to the techniques used in Western swordsmanship. Specifically, thrusts at weak spots with the off-hand on the blade (back of the blade actually), grappling, use of a back-up, rondell like dagger and, always preferred, something besides a katana - such as a yari, naginata or bow.

Clearly Japanese swordsman from the 15th century did not think their swords could cut steel.

Superiority of the Curved Edge
As Angus Trim already described, when cutting a curved target, a curved sword is a minute improvement in terms of force per area. Additionally, plenty of modern cutting demos have shown that straight bladed swords can consistently cleave all the way to the bone. Wisby and Towton provide even more evidence of straight swords cutting all the way to the bone and even through it. I don't what more can be expected that cutting to 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 CoP of a saber is generally at or just below the end of the curvature.

However, I've seen several descriptions from period sources of the advantages of curved swords from horseback. While not all (back) curved swords are used by horsemen, they are predominantly a cavalry weapon.

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 used 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 weights.

As described in this doctoral thesis(near the bottom) the katana is made of the same material 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 cut steel armor (while a European sword could not) 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 the Scottish broadswords breaking the 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 hard metal (steel) 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.

* * *

Why I like straight-bladed swords. You can attack with both edges. This frequently shows up in the Lichtenauer I'm studying. It's better in the thrust. Again something that shows up frequently in Lichtenauer. So it's a versatile weapon.

* * *

There are plenty of good curved swords and styles to take advantage of it properties. The exact same is true of straight-bladed swords. Most cultures used both. I assume for a practical reason.

[Richard Fay]

Hello again!

[George Hill]

[Greg Thomas Obach]

http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html

looks like the sword can cut through armor....... thank you for that link...




very interesting post...

thank you
Greg

[George Hill]

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

[Greg Coffman]

[A. Jake Storey II]

I looked at some info to see where I might have gone wrong. A lot of my info came from a Sense of a Martial Art style developed in Japan for the Samurai. I can't remember the name of the style anymore (its one of those ones with a name you could wright on your entire arm! J/K), but it is rare to find it outside Japan.The thing about this style is that it was not typical to the Samurai, most things they did were very deferent. For instance: they did not train with kata, but in a manor to complex to get into here. They typically used a short Katana (I believe these were often called Chiisa-Katana.) and were described as preferring light armor. The sense told me that it was made from leather, bamboo, and some steel or iron. I’m not sure if the bamboo was constructed in a specific way or what, but they were more of a just don’t get hit type then trusting in armor. I think I should remember these were the exception, not the rule.

Also, my reference to Katanas cutting through steel was more concerning mail and scale armor then plate! Most of my armor interest predate most plate armor.

[Florian H.]

Hello everybody!

Couldn't the shape of a katana have something to with the aesthetic preferences of japanese culture? If you look at feudal japanese houses, castles, etc... you can recognize similar curved elements.
Well, on japanese armor, have a look on this page. The author states that "Japanese Armor has never been made of wood or bamboo". http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/

And on katanas cutting maille, have a look at the video on the left second row where one tries to cut a tatami mat protected by maille. The difference between protected and unprotected is pretty astounding. It makes clear why our ancastors wore this stuff. http://www.thearma.com/Videos/NTCvids/testing...erials.htm

And one last thing. The german word "Messer" has no plural. It' one Messer and many Messer.
Don't want to annoy someone. Just because I read that several times here and thought you propably don't know.

Best regards, Florian.

[Steven H]

[Steven H]

[A. Jake Storey II]

To say that you can’t cu through mail is foolish. This test was done by an average modern swordsman (he said this twice)! This is an important note because the best modern swordsman is most likely only a little above an average trained Knight. And then there is the issue of strength, there is no question as to whether or not the warriors of old were stronger then us. They were! Now this doesn’t mean that they can be cut through as if they weren’t there, merely that it’s not as easy as it looks. There is a difference between a 10 knife and a 40 inch sword (I suggest you review the laws of circular motion and force). Again I’m not saying it was easy to cut through mail, just that you statement of “you can’t cut mail” is not completely true. If a sword couldn’t cut through mail then the sword would have been replaced with the mace or some other crushing weapon.