Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why straight? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 
Author Message
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Sat 14 Oct, 2006 2:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alexander Hinman wrote:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is it that shield-using peoples are more inclined toward the use of double-edged swords? Or that once a weapon shape becomes predominant in a culture it is often quite hard to change?


I'm saying that the need of coping with a shield encouraged the use of double edged blades, (but NOT that it prevented the use of other designs. Rather that it might have been a very significant factor which encouraged the use of a particular design, which became predominant among many shield cultures. Consider that the Romans, and the 'barbarians' both tended towards the use of large shields, and used double edge blades 'predominantly.' The Vikings as well, dark age warriors of all sorts.

The Greeks used many sorts, but also had a very large number of double edged blades of one kind or another, and were certainly a shield culture.

As such, the double edged design became the 'standard' sword. Of course, why one wouldn't produce curved doubled edged designs is something that would need more looking into, but perhaps the lack of many swords like this means there is a flaw in such a design which we are not aware of. Or perhaps it is simply that a double edged design is most 'naturally' produced in a symmetrical and therefore straight shape. Or perhaps when hooking a shield in a stab one is better off with the predictable point of a straight blade. So you would want a straight blade with double edges to take full advantage of whatever you might do to the other fellow once your sword was working it's way around his shield in a tight press.

(Of course, the African Hooking sword would be a particular example of a very different way of looking at the problem. )



And I'm saying that because of the above and perhaps a number of other reasons, the double edged blade became predominant. Once that shape became predominant, it wouldn't be inclined to change it unless pressed by significant new circumstances.

As to the cultures you mention, certainly this isn't an hard and fast rule, but rather a tendency which is like unto any other tendency, subject to the sway of local forces. Of course, I do note that most of the cultures I mention were also predominantly infantry cultures for long periods of their development, and that any culture which did not frequently use swords with shields on foot would be excluded from the sampling.





OF course, I might be totally off base, and straight swords were used because they were easier to make.

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
A. Jake Storey II




Location: USA
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 41

PostPosted: Sun 15 Oct, 2006 5:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

George Hill wrote:
Consider that the Romans, and the 'barbarians' both tended towards the use of large shields, and used double edge blades 'predominantly.'


The Barbarians actually weren't a nation or anything like that. It was a classification that the Romans put on all people North of them (and possibly other peoples to?). If I recall correctly, there was one so called "barbarian" group that had a weapon half way between a pole arm and a sword. It had a handle that was about 2’ (maybe more) and a longish forward curving blade. This was a fairly effective weapon against most shield baring people, but the size of the Romans shield was so large that they couldn’t get a strike in. So, they were beaten miserably.

Only you can deny yourself your rights.
Too ignore the rights of others, is to forfeit you own!
Thereby, in your crime, YOU bring Justice on your own head!!!
View user's profile Send private message
Adam Simmonds




Location: Henley On Thames
Joined: 10 Jun 2006

Posts: 169

PostPosted: Sun 15 Oct, 2006 5:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

hi guys,

personally, in my own modest experience, i find the aesthetics as well as practical appilications of a light, staight blade to be unsurpassable.

i have worked out with both straight and curved weapons, and like how the striaght seems to allow me more flexibility, and broad range of options, without being too predisposed towards certain movements and cutting directions, angles etc.

but really, i reckon it comes down to personal preferences and fighting styles.

cheers, adam
View user's profile Send private message
Torsten F.H. Wilke




Location: Irvine Spectrum, CA
Joined: 01 Jul 2006

Posts: 250

PostPosted: Sun 15 Oct, 2006 7:09 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
A. Jake Story II wrote:
The Barbarians actually weren't a nation or anything like that.

In reality they were... a precursor to the German Nazis, lol!

Quote:
Jake also wrote:
, but the size of the Romans shield was so large that they couldn’t get a strike in. So, they were beaten miserably.

That's an odd statement, since not a single Roman's remains were found in the area of the massacre at the Teutoberg Forest. An entire force of 60,000 roman troops dissappeared off the face of the earth at the capable hands of the "Barbarians", in the confines of a known small valley. To this day, people are still trying to figure out where the massive amount of Roman remains and military hardware, which would likely have been left behind, went. This event is recorded in much detail by the Romans, since the "Barbarians" let a few survivors return to Roman outposts to spread the "news"! Roman government was known at the time to have been gravely concerned with the financial burden on the State incurred by this particularly significant loss of heavily funded troops. Oh, and the fact that the "Barbarian" leader was an ex Roman commander might have helped a bit.


ok, so I had a little fun with this post... spear me, lol Razz Laughing Out Loud


sorry everyone, don't think I have the quote thing down yet...


Last edited by Torsten F.H. Wilke on Sun 15 Oct, 2006 8:11 pm; edited 5 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Sun 15 Oct, 2006 7:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Torsten F.H. Wilke wrote:
To this day, people are still trying to figure out where the massive amount of Roman remains and military hardware, which would likely have been left behind, went.


I heard the Romans sent an clean up crew several years later to cremate the dead. According to the documentry, (Which are always suspect, but still) the Romans found many skeletons pinned to trees by spears, took them down, and built a pyre.

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Sam Barris




Location: San Diego, California
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 630

PostPosted: Sun 15 Oct, 2006 8:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A. Jake Storey II wrote:
If I recall correctly, there was one so called "barbarian" group that had a weapon half way between a pole arm and a sword. It had a handle that was about 2’ (maybe more) and a longish forward curving blade. This was a fairly effective weapon against most shield baring people, but the size of the Romans shield was so large that they couldn’t get a strike in. So, they were beaten miserably.


Are you talking about the Dacian falx?

Pax,
Sam Barris

"Any nation that draws too great a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools." —Thucydides
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Geoff Wood




Location: UK
Joined: 31 Aug 2003

Posts: 634

PostPosted: Mon 16 Oct, 2006 9:12 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A. Jake Storey II wrote:
The Barbarians actually weren't a nation or anything like that. It was a classification that the Romans put on all people North of them (and possibly other peoples to?). If I recall correctly, there was one so called "barbarian" group that had a weapon half way between a pole arm and a sword. It had a handle that was about 2’ (maybe more) and a longish forward curving blade. This was a fairly effective weapon against most shield baring people, but the size of the Romans shield was so large that they couldn’t get a strike in. So, they were beaten miserably.


I think (but i'm sure someonee will tell me if I'm wrong) that it was the Greeks, not the Romans, who introduced the term barbarian, reputedly because, since they couldn't understand what non-Greek speakers were saying, it sounded like 'bar bar' to them. It is perhaps unsurprising that the term Xenophobia is also Greek .............
View user's profile Send private message
Sam Barris




Location: San Diego, California
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 630

PostPosted: Mon 16 Oct, 2006 10:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Geoff Wood wrote:
I think (but i'm sure someonee will tell me if I'm wrong) that it was the Greeks, not the Romans, who introduced the term barbarian, reputedly because, since they couldn't understand what non-Greek speakers were saying, it sounded like 'bar bar' to them. It is perhaps unsurprising that the term Xenophobia is also Greek .............


No. You're correct. The "bar bar" thing was their version of "woof woof". Not particularly nice, but English speakers have said equally insulting things to non English speakers and done their share of lumping all foreigners into one convenient catch-all package. Easier to focus the hate that way.

And yes, xenophobia is a Greek word (two, rather), but you could just as easily say xenophilia and have it be linguistically correct. There are so many Greek roots in English that it is impossible to draw any conclusions through etymology alone. We may as well infer that all ancient Greeks were exceptionally charitable because philanthropy is Hellenic in origin, or we might conclude the opposite when we realize the root of the word misanthrope. The same goes for Latin.

Getting back to the sharp and pointy things, it would make sense if that curved thing turned out to be a falx. The Dacians were fairly thoroughly obliterated at the hands of the Romans, after all.

Pax,
Sam Barris

"Any nation that draws too great a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools." —Thucydides
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Geoff Wood




Location: UK
Joined: 31 Aug 2003

Posts: 634

PostPosted: Mon 16 Oct, 2006 12:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam Barris wrote:

No. You're correct. The "bar bar" thing was their version of "woof woof". Not particularly nice, but English speakers have said equally insulting things to non English speakers and done their share of lumping all foreigners into one convenient catch-all package. Easier to focus the hate that way.

And yes, xenophobia is a Greek word (two, rather), but you could just as easily say xenophilia and have it be linguistically correct. There are so many Greek roots in English that it is impossible to draw any conclusions through etymology alone. We may as well infer that all ancient Greeks were exceptionally charitable because philanthropy is Hellenic in origin, or we might conclude the opposite when we realize the root of the word misanthrope. The same goes for Latin.

Getting back to the sharp and pointy things, it would make sense if that curved thing turned out to be a falx. The Dacians were fairly thoroughly obliterated at the hands of the Romans, after all.


Mr Barris
You are, of course, correct. I was being silly and unfair about the Greeks. I agree with you about the Falx being the likely item that Mr Storey was referring to. On that, although the Romans won in the end, is it not the case the the falx itself was quite a frightener for them and caused a reinforcement in their helmet design (or is that another myth from the discovery channel)?
Regards
Geoff
View user's profile Send private message
Travis Canaday




Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 147

PostPosted: Mon 16 Oct, 2006 1:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Torsten F.H. Wilke wrote:
Quote:
A. Jake Story II wrote:
The Barbarians actually weren't a nation or anything like that.

In reality they were... a precursor to the German Nazis, lol!


Torsten,

I am pretty sure you are joking and all, but what do you mean by this? How were ancient germanic (or any) peoples like nazis?

Travis
View user's profile Send private message
Sam Barris




Location: San Diego, California
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 630

PostPosted: Mon 16 Oct, 2006 4:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Geoff Wood wrote:
I agree with you about the Falx being the likely item that Mr Storey was referring to. On that, although the Romans won in the end, is it not the case the the falx itself was quite a frightener for them and caused a reinforcement in their helmet design (or is that another myth from the discovery channel)?


I've heard that the helmet reinforcement was to counter forward-curving, blade-heavy swords like the kopis. I don't think a falx would have the mass to justify the extra ridge. But my sources might be mistaken, or I might be underestimating the falx. I'd say that the falx was a frightener, though. That's a wicked looking blade. It looks like something Salvador Dali might have come up with in his past life as a Dacian swordsmith. And the scythe imagry would seem to play on basic archetypal fears that might go back almost as far as agriculture itself. I'd be scared of a guy who had one of those things and knew how to use it. Worried Happy

Pax,
Sam Barris

"Any nation that draws too great a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools." —Thucydides
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
A. Jake Storey II




Location: USA
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 41

PostPosted: Mon 16 Oct, 2006 7:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Most of what I've read on romans sense roman history in school was a very basic roman warfare book which described one war. The flax is the most commonly used explanation for the reinforcements on the helmets. And as to saying that all the barbarians are one group. All that I have read of this time period has the roman empires expansive size as being an exception. Most people were in tribe like city/nations. Though most of what i’ve read on this type of nation was on early Britain, what I’ve read on the Barbarians suggests that they were separate groups of people given a generic name just cause they weren't part of the “civilized” world. This has been an interesting thread. It has gotten into subjects that have litle or no connection with the origenal topic, which is cool.
Only you can deny yourself your rights.
Too ignore the rights of others, is to forfeit you own!
Thereby, in your crime, YOU bring Justice on your own head!!!
View user's profile Send private message
Sam Barris




Location: San Diego, California
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 630

PostPosted: Mon 16 Oct, 2006 9:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A. Jake Storey II wrote:
Most of what I've read on romans sense roman history in school was a very basic roman warfare book which described one war. The flax is the most commonly used explanation for the reinforcements on the helmets. And as to saying that all the barbarians are one group. All that I have read of this time period has the roman empires expansive size as being an exception. Most people were in tribe like city/nations. Though most of what i’ve read on this type of nation was on early Britain, what I’ve read on the Barbarians suggests that they were separate groups of people given a generic name just cause they weren't part of the “civilized” world. This has been an interesting thread. It has gotten into subjects that have litle or no connection with the origenal topic, which is cool.


Yeah, Wikipedia seems to agree with you on the falx. Of course, I could log on and make the Roman helmet reinforcement a direct response to the use of jelly donuts as projectiles in ancient warfare, so I try to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. Both the kopis and falx were nasty choppers, though, so whichever one the Romans had in mind when they upgraded, I'm sure they were happy they did when they encountered the other.

You're close on the barbarian thing. They were a diverse collection of peoples and cultures that were originally given a generic name because the one thing they had in common was that they didn't speak Greek. It caught on from there, but that is the root of the term.

Pax,
Sam Barris

"Any nation that draws too great a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools." —Thucydides
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Greg Coffman




Location: Lubbock, TX
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 254

PostPosted: Tue 17 Oct, 2006 10:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I would suggest that the discussion between curved and straight blades should not center around cutting ability but in the way it swings and is otherwise employed by the wielder. Curved, straight single-edged, and straight double-edged swords may all be found in many places around the world at different time periods and within the same time periods. In as much as there are typologies meant for cutting in all of these three categories, we can deduce that they all are very effective as cutters.

I my opinion, the argument that curved blades are more effective than straight blades in the draw cut is disproved by experience and practice. Straight blades can in fact be just as successfully employed in draw cuts than straight. However, I would go on to suggest that the draw cut is of limited effectiveness as it has been shown to fail to cut even common clothing. Therefore, even the hint that curved blades are better in the draw cut is really no advantage at all. (The draw cut should not be totally cast aside and was certainly present in the Liechtenauer tradition.)

In my mind, single edge straight swords have much in common with curved swords which are normally single edged. Though many single edge swords may often have a sharpened portion of the false edge, as correctly pointed out by George Hill, it is still appropriate to classify these as single edged. Single edge straight swords fill an area between curved and double edged swords.

When I think of the difference between curved and straight (double edged) swords, I do not think about cutting ability (which I consider to be negligible) but rather how the weapon handles and how it can be employed.

First, curved swords posses a different balance than straight swords. I am not familiar enough with the concepts of nodes and CoP to argue from a more technical perspective other than to say that they just swing differently.

Secondly, curved swords thrust differently than straight swords. Most all curved swords are able to employ the thrust to great effectiveness, but what type of curved sword aspired to the same ability in the thrust than certain straight types. The swords that are known as exceptionally oriented towards the thrust (the Roman gladius, Oakshott type XV, XIIV, etc.) are straight. Curved swords are just not able to put their mass linearly into the thrust as straight swords are able. This can also be perceived by handling the weapons.

And lastly, double edged swords are better suited to making cuts with the false edge. Even on single edge blades, the true edge is the primary edge for cutting. Sure, certain strikes may be permitted and appropriate with single edged or curved blades, but they are not understood to be actual attempts to cut. Many strikes are too awkward including the important Zwerchau in the German tradition. Curved swords fight differently.

Whether one sword is better than the other is in the eye of the beholder, in the hand of the wielder. Different blade designs thrived amongst each other. Certain blades do in fact cut better than others but this has not been shown to be just because the blade is curved or not. And if one blade is preferred by any particular fighter over another blade with superior cutting ability, some other attribute than cutting ability is obviously the reason. I suggest that this is in how the weapon fights instead of how the weapon cuts.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why straight?
Page 5 of 5 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 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