Sword myths, help me out

[Ashren Va'Hale]

going out on a limb there eh turin? ;)

Whats the basis for an assertion like that one?! Better to parry with the edge than get hit with a sword! Hah! Pure unsubstantiated speculation if you ask me ;)

[Jake Norwood]

Two things:

First, let's drop the edge/flat debate. It's well documented elsewhere and tends to eat threads up like a broken sewing machine.

Second, the swords in the mass battle scenes in Last Samurai would have been Tachi, not necessarily katana. Tachi are worn hung from the obi (belt) when wearing armor much like a european sword on a hanger, which is why most katana scabbards have little loop-tabs on the convex side--to hang them. The katana was worn edge-up when tucked into the sash, but edge-down when acting as a battle-sword accompanying armor. See every book on feudal japan and early (non-sport) kenjustu.

Jake

[CPXB]

I'm not going to source anything I say, alas, but I do feel the urge to say a few things as a historian, particularly of science.

The first people to use cast iron weapons were the Chinese.  The Chinese were using cast iron something like a thousand years before anyone else.  Which is part of the reason a lot of their swords look a lot like meat cleavers -- they were cheaply made and needed to be thick and heavy so as not to break in the first exchange.

Japanese swords were well made, but how well made depends on the era, obviously, and the metal.  A lot of Japanese metal was of inferior quality, but a fair number of sword blanks were imported from abroad.  The best were from India, which I will talk about in a bit.  However, the reputation of Japanese swords is highly overrated.  They were sharp, but not particularly heavy, and the curved edge meant that they weren't as effectively against heavy armor as a straight edged sword would be.  Japanese swords also changed fairly dramatically over time.  Starting in about the 12th century, the blades were thinner and fatter.  As a person moves foward through history, the blades become wider and narrower -- and very, very sharp.  However, sharpness is an overrated quality in swordfights, often.  Additionally, the thinness of the blade made it harder to apply the edge to the opponent easily -- the blades became easier and easier to deflect.  This is, roughly, because in the 18th and 19th centuries guns were coming to dominate Japanese culture and more and more swordfighting was being done for purposes of honor alone.  The combatants tended to wearing less armor off the battlefield and so much armor on the battlefield that sword design was changing -- so devestating flesh became more important than defeating armor (Europe obviously underwent a similar process, but in another direction -- the swords, instead of becoming sharper, became pointier until they were, essentially, just points as we all know).

To my knowledge of martial arts, Japanese swordsmen were very well disciplined, as a body, but in terms of technique they were not superior as a rule.  Indeed, I would say that due to the way the Japanese abjured the shield they were, in technique, inferior in technique.  But that's interpretation.

Also, and very notably, the formalization of Japanese sword techniques happened roughly at the same time as the formalization of European sword techniques.  Comparing the sword technique of a 18th century Japanese swordsman to the sword technique of a 6th century Frankish knight is frivolous, I think.  But if you compare the sophistication of an 18th century Japanese swordsman to an 18th century European swordsman you'll find their techniques of comparable sophistication.  There is a tendency to treat kenjitsu as if it sprung fully formed into existense when, in truth, like European swordsmanship (and swordsmanship everywhere) the techniques came into existance after centuries of experimentation and consideration, and were ever evolving for circumstance.

Japanese armor also changed greatly.  During pre-samurai period and for a considerable time thereafter, yeah, it was mostly hardened leather.  However, by the end of Japanese feudalism they were wearing suits of armor that were in some ways heavier than suits of Maximillian plate (though not as utterly complete as a suit of Maximillian plate).  The Japanese also made extremely heavy suits of chainmail.

There are many, many myths surrounding Japanese swordsmanship and battlefield fighting, alas.  I fear this thread as perpetrated more of them than it has dispelled.

Also, IMO, the best constructed swords in the pre-modern world were Indian.  Indian steel technology reached a very, very high degree of refinement thousands of years earlier than anywhere else in the world.  In Delhi there are steel pillars that are literally thousands of years old without any trace of rust on them.  It is possible to find in archeological digs thousand year old katars and swords without the slightest bit of rust on them, despite their long internment in the wet Indian soil.  Ancient Indian steel is being studied by metallurgists to this day with great fascination.  Alas, the study goes slowly because of historic reasons (the British consciously destroyed the Indian smelters during the 19th century so it could dominate the Indian steel market; they were so efficient that many techniques were lost forever).  I know that some Russian metallurgists have claimed to have functionally reproduced the Indian metallurgical techniques with pulat steel; there seems to be some justification to that, such as being able to slash in twain free hanging silk scarves.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

thanks for the input jake, and if you notice the first post on this thread, I want this to give me a list of the myths, perceptions and general bs that gets shuffled around the net. so far its working well for that purpose. I am not accepting anything anyone here says as truth but instead making a list of things to research.

[timfire]

Tachi are worn hung from the obi (belt) when wearing armor much like a european sword on a hanger, which is why most katana scabbards have little loop-tabs on the convex side--to hang them.

Almost Jake. A scabbard designed for a tachi had two special hangers built onto it. Go here to see a picture, about 2/3 down the page. A standard katana scabbard just has one little knob/loop-thingy on the side for attaching the sageo (a cord that has many purposes, depending upon the school).

[Brand_Robins]

Also, IMO, the best constructed swords in the pre-modern world were Indian.

Indeed. The famous "Damascus steel" actually started in India. Though it would spread through central Asia and into the near east the metals and techniques were Indian. And, incedentally, the term doesn't (apparently) have anything to do with Damascus, but with the wattery pattern from the crucible method of forging the steel.

Though, so long as we're going on about the Japanese sword being in reaction to their metal supply, we should also note that one of the reasons for the superiority of Indian steel wasn't just their metalurgical techniques, but the fact that they had local iron-ores that were superior for sword making purpouses.

(Source: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html)

Of course, all of this begs the question as to whether being made with superior steel really makes a sword a superior weapon, much less a l337 killing machine that can cut through trees....

[CPXB]

Also, IMO, the best constructed swords in the pre-modern world were Indian.

Indeed. The famous "Damascus steel" actually started in India. Though it would spread through central Asia and into the near east the metals and techniques were Indian. And, incedentally, the term doesn't (apparently) have anything to do with Damascus, but with the wattery pattern from the crucible method of forging the steel.

Though, so long as we're going on about the Japanese sword being in reaction to their metal supply, we should also note that one of the reasons for the superiority of Indian steel wasn't just their metalurgical techniques, but the fact that they had local iron-ores that were superior for sword making purpouses.

(Source: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html)

Of course, all of this begs the question as to whether being made with superior steel really makes a sword a superior weapon, much less a l337 killing machine that can cut through trees....

Perhaps a bit of a threadjack, but "Damascus steel" in its normal usage refers to pattern welded steel (a technique that bears great similiarity, really, to the Japanese technique of folding the metal, actually).  Indian steel was called Damascus because a large number of Indian steel sword blanks passed through Damascus.  Acid etched pattern welded swords bear superficial similarities to Indian steel swords, and counterfeiting was so common that eventually the term Damascus steel came to refer to the real product of swords made from Indian sword blanks and the inferior in quality (but still very high quality, it should be noted) pattern welded swords.

And, yes, the unusually high quality of Indian steel was in part because of the exception ore they had as well, though study of ancient Indian steel finds some really stunning traits that are independent from the ore.

But does superior steel make for a super sword?  Simply put, no.  The Chinese used their cheap quality cast swords and won many battles.  Indeed, though I haven't really studied it, I suspect that the cheap quality (read: low cost and easy to manufacture) Chinese swords were a source of tremendous strength for the Chinese military.  Rather than expend lavish resources to produce these really high quality swords, they spent the same sources to produce them by the hundred.

[Paganini]

A knife loses all control if thrown farther than three paces.

So, this one is so much crap I feel the urge to add some more. My personal full-spin distance for my 13 inch pro-target dragons is almost exactly 3 paces. I personally know people who's standard working distance is two full turns, and I have seen other people stick a reasonably small target round (say 1 to 2 feet in diamter) consistently from 3 full turns. I also saw John Baily stick one from 80 feet, but it took him a couple of tries. ;)

[Paganini]

Here's another myth from Last Samurai: Look at the way all those samurai are carrying their swords in the last battle.

UPSIDE DOWN.

The shoto (companion sword, wakizashi) is carried blade up, the daito (long sword, katana) is carried blade down. The tachi (very long sword) is carried strapped to the back.

Edit: I should add, of course, so's not to contradict Jake, that I'm talking about battle armor here. I have seen photos of masters from various schools doing kata; regardless of the school, the scabbard is thrust through the obi edge facing up.

[Bankuei]

My personal irking myths are:

-Two weapons at one time are impossible to use effectively

OR

-Two weapons at a time are better than everything else


Sigh.

Ok, the places that typically used two weapons were usually tropical jungle areas, where you don't have massed battles and lots of archery going on.  Most fights are close in, by surprise, and ugly.  Two weapons are usually knives or short swords, used in conjunction, and people have very little armor.

In mass battle, a shield or a really good formation is your friend.  2 weapons will not help you there.  In the jungle, where fights start at medium, close or grappling range, your armor or shield may not help you at all.

Different conditions, different weapons, different tactics.

Chris

[Paganini]

Tachi are worn hung from the obi (belt) when wearing armor much like a european sword on a hanger, which is why most katana scabbards have little loop-tabs on the convex side--to hang them.

Almost Jake. A scabbard designed for a tachi had two special hangers built onto it. Go here to see a picture, about 2/3 down the page. A standard katana scabbard just has one little knob/loop-thingy on the side for attaching the sageo (a cord that has many purposes, depending upon the school).

Hey, I was just giving this page a closer look. About a third of the way down is says that the daito (long sword) was the mark of the Samurai's rank. I understood that it was the other way around. The shoto was used in the seppuku ritual, and gave an advantage in close-quarters combat, whereas the daito was used by battlefield ashigaru. I can't find where I got this idea now, so I can't back it up! Is this one of those controversial issues, and I just happened to come across the opposite side of it sometime previously?

[Kaelin]

At least from my understanding, prior to the rise of the Tokugawa Shogunate (the rulers of the Edo period, from about 1600-1867, if I'm remembering my dates correctly), the symbol of the samurai was the right to carry BOTH swords, long and short - the longer blade was primarily for battlefield usage, while the shorter for seppuku, indoors and close-combat fighting where the use of the long blade may be difficult (low roofs in a lot of old Japanese buildings), and possibly as an off-hand secondary weapon (like the so called "Musashi style", although it would not surprise me if the wakizashi/shoto/kodachi/uchigatana was occasionally used in that manner before Musashi made it famous).  However, (and this may vary on time and province) someone who was NOT a samurai could carry a single sword, and it did not matter what the blade-length.  Once the Tokugawas came to power, they solidified the laws that, again, only the samurai could carry two swords, while wealthy merchants could purchase the right to carry a single sword, but it had to be of shorter variety (the katana is defined as having a blade of roughly two shaku (about a foot) or more in length, the wakizashi of 1-2 shaku in blade length).  Peasant farmers and artisans were not allowed to carry swords at all.  At least, thats what I seem to remember from my Japanese history class in college, amongst other sources.

Kaelin

[Muggins]

I shall walk sideways around the Japanese stuff and edge-vs-flat, and attack a few other bugbears.

Two Weapon fighting: Humans have opposable thumbs on both hands, and every fighting man in history has tried to make use of both. Probably the oldest 2W arts are those involving shields- spear and shield (Greece, Zulu), short sword and shield (Rome), sword and buckler (Europe and India). The shield is a very useful weapon, capable of beats, hits, and is some cases, cuts using sharpened edges. Following on from this are the large+small weapons which can be seen in many regions. Shortsword and dagger, rapier and dagger, katana and wakizashi. The use of a small weapon allows for close in work, as well as being used in defence. More unusually, there are several sword arts, treated as skillful but not useful, using two swords of equal length- a case of rapiers, or two equal katanas. No European master I have read treats this combination as a battlefield combination, but does laud the skill involved. Importantly, every master, Japanese or European, tells you to become fully proficient with a single weapon before upgrading.

Rapiers: Rapiers have edges, and sometimes a false edge, and could definitely be used to cut. The edges were definitely not there only to cut an opponent's grasping hand (most rapier duellists used a thick glove to protect against the edge). The difference with a rapier is that the thrust is primary, not that it is not used. Of course, it would be a very brave man to declare what exactly a rapier is!

More when I think of them.

James

[Eamon]

Its been a long time, but I'll bite on the chance to toss in some sword myths:

1. The katana was the most awesome blade ever.  It can cut through people, trees, silk, and European armor (including modern tanks) without losing its edge.  A 3rd rate samurai sword is better than anything ever produced anywhere else.  The only thing that can deal with a katana is a ninjato or samurai armor.

2. Samurai armor was lighter and more effective than what the Europeans used.  It never evolved or changed, never suffered from foreign influences, and there is only one way to make it, which is by putting laquer on bamboo strips.

3. A European broadsword is the correct term for the European sword (forget what Shakespeare said in Romeo and Julet, what does he know?).  It weighs on average 40 pounds.  A greatsword, or claymore weighs 60 pounds.  Fighting with them is like fighting with crowbars, all strength and nothing else.  And the rapier destroyed this sword from being used.

4. The rapier was designed to penetrate armor by piercing the slits in plate mail or going through the rings of chainmail.  Its big weakness was the katana, which explains why the Europeans never managed to conquer Japan.  A katana would snap a rapier in two with one stroke.

5. Europeans didn't practice martial arts.  They used guns to conquer everyone.  They never used local allies.  Cortez didn't have any crossbowmen with him when he beat the Aztech Empire.

6. Modern Fencing was the end result of 300 years of rapier training that turned into its sleekest, best form.  Then rules were added to make it not lethal.  Fencing is the ultimate European sword fighing method, much better than fighting with 80 pound swords!  Anyway, it explains how the Europeans did so well on the battlefield against natives when it was raining and their powder was wet.

I think that sums most myths up, right?

[F. Scott Banks]

Looks like I'd better reference those posts I made earlier.  When this thread was young I tossed out a few "facts" that weren't as well referenced as other posts I'd later made.

When I said that daggers couldn't be thrown father than three paces, I was speaking specifically about combat and utility knives that are not blanced for throwing.  I was taught by the army that throwing such a knife farther than three revolutoins (or roughly three paces) was a risky venture since after three turns, you're pretty much relying on luck.  Since the army has a such a tight lock on their training manuals regarding advanced wepaons techniques, I can't really reference this one.

Bastards!  Don't they know the future of accurate gaming hangs in the balance!

I should also better define my statements regarding european swords, especially the beloved rapier (a personal favorite of mine).  When I said that a rapiers edge was used solely to prevent a bare-handed parry, I should have provided somewhat more backstory on the rapier.

The original "Elizabethan" rapier was a gentleman's weapon and it's edge was used to "discourage" parrying with the bare hand.  Since most duelists wore heavy gloves (for more than one reason, those handguards chafe like a bitch) the cutting edge was largely negated.  Hoever, the reduced surface area of the blade still made it hard to hold onto whether it was biting into flesh or not.

The rapier became widely popular however, and versions of the original weapon can be found all over europe.  Actually, there is some debate as to the "origin" of the weapon as it's popularity spread so quickly and it's design fit so well with existing sword styles that it seems to have gained immediate universal appeal amongst european swordsmen. This may be due to the fact that the style of "cut-and-thrust" swordsmanship, existed before the rapier came into use.  In fact, due to this, it could be said that the rapier was popular before it was invneted.  Also, the masters of the style were originally Italian, French, and German whereas the sword itself was english in design.  Hearing the "masters" argue over who invented what is amusing, but largely uninformative.

Oh yeah, that last link is why I don't like referencing any sites that have a bias towards a particular style.  However, since it was written in 1599, it has some validity for our purposes here.  I do think his reference to the Italian masters as "false teachers" a bit harsh though.  That would have started a flame war if he were alive today.

To a purist, the "Elizabethan" rapier was only sharp to prevent it from being grabbed by a defender, it's edge negligible in a fight.  However, the term "rapier" has come to represent all "cut-and-thrust" wepaons, even those that existed prior to it's invention such as the Estoc or the Espada Ropera.   From this viewpoint, the "Rapier" as a classification of wepaons is very versatile and comes in many designs, complementing a great many styles of combat.  I have yet to see a rapier that can kill with it's edge, but some styles of the sword can inflict a serious wound by slashing, and are not strictly thrust weapons.

P.S.

Just for shits and giggles, I'm linking this article debating "Who would win between a rapier and a katana".  Despite the schoolyard debate theme of the article, it's well-written and takes many facts into account.  For the record, I agree with the author in that both swordsmen would probably kill each other in a dramtic explosion of skill and romantic disregard for their own lives.  However, I also agree with him that such a pairing has probably never happened outside of the minds of writers and gamers.  

I also like his mentioning that a rapier was used with a companion dagger because "...a rapier is impotent one you get past it's point".  However, this author, like myself, seems to be referencing the "Elizabethan" Rapier, not speaking of the weapon as a general classification of a "type" of sword.

Also, notice his debunking the myth of a rapier as a flimsy weapon that would break easily against a heavier sword.

Edit:

Rassafrassin broken links!

Gentleman's weapon:
http://www.bankeside.org/history.html
"cut-and-thrust" before the Rapier"
http://www.swordforum.com/ssi/messages/3284.html
Non-english Rapier Masters:
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wew/fencing/masters.html
English Rapier Rant
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html
Rapier as a "type" of sword:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier
Estoc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoc
Espada Ropera:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espada_ropera
Katana vs. Rapier:
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/katanavs.htm