Sword myths, help me out

[tauman]

Hmmm, not to nit-pick, but a lot of this doesn't quite ring true for me:

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.

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.

Against a thrust with a rapier, it pretty much doesn't matter how much edge there is or isn't on the blade. Also, if I did a correct hand block, it wouldn't be dangerous (to my hand) to grab my opponent's rapier, if necessary (to prevent my opponent from withdrawing and re-thrusting his sword).

As to whether or not the edge is effective or not for cutting, well, there seems to be a certain amount of debate about that. Granted, no one says that the rapier is useful against armor, or that it will dismember, or that it as effective at cutting as the heavier blades. However, the manuals of Capo Ferro (1610) and Alfieri (1640), both give the cut as an alternative technique in many (8 out of 35 for Capo Ferro, and about 75% of Alfieri's techniques). Fabris also describes appropriate uses for cuts in his manual (1606). Given that these maestri describe the cut, I tend to think that it must be somewhat effective--while certainly it wouldn't remove a limb the way a longsword would, it might be able to capacite if delivered correctly. I think it worth noting that all cut techniques given by the above maestri utilize the same 3 targets: the head, the forearm of the weapon arm, and the forward leg just above or below the knee.

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.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Certainly the dagger can be useful in close, but in rapier & dagger, the dagger is much more useful than just "hanging around to get in close," it forms an integral part of a good defense. As far as the rapier being useless once you're past the point--well, there is a distance where you've passed the point, but you're not close enough to use the dagger offensively. That's where you're likely to get a cut on the head or arm. Would either be fatal, almost certainly not. But either could quite possible affect the outcome of the fight.

Of course the next step will be to go into the semantics of what a rapier is, but I assume we're talking about something with a blade of about 42"+ (as measured from the quillons to the tip) balanced for thrusting with a compound hilt.

If we're talking about the rapier with regards to TROS, I'd say that those rapiers with a triangular section (i.e. no edge) should have no cutting ability (obviously). OTOH, those with an edge should have cutting ability. I think there was a suggested modification to damage a few weeks ago in a different topic that really made sense. However, the referee might want to disregard cut results (or reduce or limit severity) to certain locations (for example, it's pretty much impossible to kill anyone with a cut to the chest with a rapier).


Steve

[Paganini]

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.

You're kidding, right? You do know that you can *buy* the Army feild manuals on a CD-ROM, or download them from the U.S. Army website? A couple of consim gamer freinds who work in the Pentagon first put me onto the links.

Plus, to get technical, one pace does not equal anything like one revolution. For most people, one full revolution is 3 - 4 paces. This does depend on the size of the knife - the shorter and ligher the knife, the quicker the revolution. (I throw my little 6 inch Hibben floaters from about 4 feet for one turn.) AKTA standard tournament distances are 12 feet for 1 spin, 18 feet for two spins, with a handle-grip.

(Myth no. 1) There's really no such thing as a "knife balanced for throwing." There are knives that are unsuitable for throwing (small, light knives, like pen-kinves, or tactical folders), but even these can be thrown effectively if you have enough skill. (I don't. But I've seen videos of people sticking swiss-army style pen-knives and tactical folders from 6-8 feet. On the opposite end of the scale, there are guys out there who can bullseye meat-cleavers from 20-30 feet.)

There are basically two kinds of knives, from a throwing perspective. Those that are are the right weight, and those that aren't. A so-called "balanced throwing knife" is one that has the balance point near the center so that you can throw with a handle grip (for full turns) or with a blade grip (for half turns). The rule for throwing a knife is, "throw the heavy end." Ideally, a knife should weigh in right around one ounce per inch of length. The important thing is how much the knife weighs, not where the balance is at. If the balance isn't in the center of the knife, you adjust your grip accordingly.

Actually, most of your standard "survival style" knives are very good throwing knives... if they're any good as knives at all. The original K-BAR is one of the most popular throwing knives out there. Whereas, most of the "perfectly balanced" knives you see in catalogues are utter crap, and will break inside 50 throws.

Many tournaments, by the way, require expertise with "frontier style" knife throwing, which involves handle throws from 12 - 18 feet, at a 1-foot wood-round using only frontier style hunting knives with natural (bone, antler, or wood) handles and traditional blade-footprints. There are, for example, a lot of K-BAR and Bowie style knockoffs out there for this kind of thing.

Most circus performers do their work at six feet or closer using half-spins. The short distance reduces the chance that they perforate their assistants if they slip. This is why (myth no. 2) a lot of people think that the only way to throw a knife is with a blade grip.

In fact, a blade throw is not typically practical in a combat situation. (How many guys do you know who carry their knives blade-throw ready... i.e., stuck through their belts handle down, with the blade pointed at their guts?) Furthermore, the default distance for a blade-throw (a half spin) is too close to be useful. In the time it takes for you to draw your knife and throw it, he can close and strike.

If you're interested in more info on knife-throwing, http://www.throwzini.com has some pretty good introductory material. The John Bailey videos are also very good, but you have to pay for them.

[Tash]

Throwing knives is something I've always wanted to develop as a skill.  Not meaning to cause even mroe drift but would you mind either posting or PMing me some advice on the best way to get started?

[Tom]

In fact, a blade throw is not typically practical in a combat situation.

Damn you, there goes my character concept. ;-)

[Tobias]

Thanks for calling me on that upside down thing. I had a very vague nagging voice in my head as I posted that (which is also why I was asking people to correct me if I was wrong), but all my recent exposure to such information indicated that sword-up was the One True Way (as much as there is such a thing, in battle).

I guess that just goes to show the insidious, persuasive power of myth.

A follow-up question from my end would be, though, why change techniques for battlefield situations and 'sash' situations? I can imagine some benefits, but also some hindrance, but rather than speculate, in this instance I would prefer an answer.

[Tom]

A follow-up question from my end would be, though, why change techniques for battlefield situations and 'sash' situations? I can imagine some benefits, but also some hindrance, but rather than speculate, in this instance I would prefer an answer.

Many of the katas that I learned in Iaido were designed for surprise situations.

Examples:
Ukenagashi is a form where you sit on the floor and someone rushes you from the side. It consists in parrying/deflecting his attack while standing up and then cutting him in half.

Tsukate is a form where you're gambling with someone who suddenly goes for his sword, and has a buddy who is sitting at your back. It consists of bashing the one in front in the head with the hilt, then drawing the blade and thrusting it into the one behind before cutting the one in front down the middle.

Soetezuki is a form where you wander next to someone, who suddenly goes for his sword. It consists of drawing your own sword, turning, and cutting - trying to beat him in speed.


There are many other forms that don't assume a combat situation, but rather an ambush or someone attacking you while you sit, stand about or walk. Many of the assumed attacks in Iaido come from the side or back. Most of the forms assume more than one enemy.

[Tobias]

Ah, I've been sloppy again. When I say 'change technique', in this case I mean the specific 'technique of wearing your sword'.

In other words - why sharp side down in full battle regalia, sharp side up otherwise?

[Eamon]

(Myth no. 1) There's really no such thing as a "knife balanced for throwing." There are knives that are unsuitable for throwing (small, light knives, like pen-kinves, or tactical folders), but even these can be thrown effectively if you have enough skill. (I don't. But I've seen videos of people sticking swiss-army style pen-knives and tactical folders from 6-8 feet. On the opposite end of the scale, there are guys out there who can bullseye meat-cleavers from 20-30 feet.)

The scariest person I ever met was my girlfriend of the summer of 1992.  She decided as an adolescent that she wanted to throw knives as a hobby.  She got some books, taught herself, and got really good.  She would practice on a board in her room (she lived in a group house) while watching television every night.  What she could do were things you had to see to believe.  And she didn't just have to do them with knives.  I saw her do stuff with pencils, hatchets and even a stick she picked up off the ground.  She wasn't strong, but she was uncannily accurate.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

here's my favorite evidence against the 30 pound longsword myth, its taken from a thread at spacebattles.com (anyone else see the irony here?)

The most damning evidence against the idea of a 35-pound bastard sword, however, is simple dimensional analysis of the sort taught in any high school physics or chemistry class. To wit:

The specific density of steel is between 7.75 and 8.05, depending on the exact composition; ordinary mild tool steel is 7.85, which translates to a density of 7850 kilograms per cubic meter (proper sword steel is lighter and stronger, of course, but using tool steel gives us a decent maximum limit since sword steel does vary rather widely). Converting the density to English system units, we get 0.283 pounds per cubic inch, which means that a bastard sword with a 36" blade and a 10" handle would have to be a solid steel bar nearly an inch in diameter in order to weigh 35 pounds.

source page:
http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57069&page=3&pp=25

[CPXB]

here's my favorite evidence against the 30 pound longsword myth, its taken from a thread at spacebattles.com (anyone else see the irony here?)

The most damning evidence against the idea of a 35-pound bastard sword, however, is simple dimensional analysis of the sort taught in any high school physics or chemistry class. To wit:

The specific density of steel is between 7.75 and 8.05, depending on the exact composition; ordinary mild tool steel is 7.85, which translates to a density of 7850 kilograms per cubic meter (proper sword steel is lighter and stronger, of course, but using tool steel gives us a decent maximum limit since sword steel does vary rather widely). Converting the density to English system units, we get 0.283 pounds per cubic inch, which means that a bastard sword with a 36" blade and a 10" handle would have to be a solid steel bar nearly an inch in diameter in order to weigh 35 pounds.

source page:
http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57069&page=3&pp=25

*snickers*  I think people make this sort of mistake because they have very little experience in lifting steel, or any heavy weight.  I'm a weightlifter and, yeah, just looking at a thirty five pound plate quickly dispels the notion that a sword has that much steel in it.  Also, hoisting around a thirty five pound plate also dispels the idea that people often used weapons of this heft.  Thirty five pounds is pretty heavy to be swinging to and fro -- not only will you get tired, if you do it with great vigor you're likely to wrench out your shoulders and hyperextend your elbows.  And fall down as you get torqued to the side.

And because most people nowadays don't realize how heavy thirty five pounds is -- what does your average American lift? -- because they find swinging a sword physically challenging they tend to exaggerate its weight.  "Golly!  Swinging a sword is hard!  Since I would never get tired swinging three pounds of metal, its gotta weight at least fifteen or twenty pounds!"  Like that, hehe.

[timfire]

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.

Hmm, not quite. Yes, a shoto would be carried edge-up and thrust through the belt, even in armor.

Tachi/ katana: First, 'tachi' is technically a generic term for sword. However, in usage its usually used to refer to a battle-sword. That is, a 'tachi' generally refers to a sword that is hung from the belt edge-down. 'Katana' generally refers to an everyday-type sword, worn edge-up and thrust through the obi.

This brings up an other nihonto (Japanese sword) myth: A tachi and katana are really the same swords, just mounted in different furniture. The blades themselves were constructed exactly the same. Different time periods, however, produced different styles of nihonto, despite the fact that the swords were called the same thing as before.

As far as the 'wearing the sword on the back' thing, check out his link:
http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21259&highlight=back+AND+wearing

Swords were carried on the back, however it was more of a traveling-thing, it was not very common. Also, check out Hyaku's comments. He practices with LONG swords, 3-4 feet + handles. He argues that its near impossible to draw a sword of that length from your shoulder.  (I think that idea will probably matchup with the experiences of those who study long & great swords).

[Paganini]

Timfire,

Thanks for clearing that up. When I wrote "tachi" in that post, I meant "no-datchi." Hadn't got around to correcting my sloppyness yet. :)

[Eamon]

Swords were carried on the back, however it was more of a traveling-thing, it was not very common. Also, check out Hyaku's comments. He practices with LONG swords, 3-4 feet + handles. He argues that its near impossible to draw a sword of that length from your shoulder.  (I think that idea will probably matchup with the experiences of those who study long & great swords).

What?  You can't keep a sword on your back?  But Xena did it!  And Ninja did it in an old James Bond movie!  And Mel Gibson did it in Brave Heart!  It is a faster way to draw the weapon, and in fact, people didn't usually carry swords on their belts!

lol!  I love myths.

[F. Scott Banks]

Hmmmm, I'm not sure what the consternation over my last post was, but if I left anything unclear, let me re-iterate.

I ain't linkin' again, so if you want to see the proof for these facts, just hit my last post.

I don't beleive I ever said that a rapier's edge was useless.  In fact, the very method of "cut-and-thrust" swordfighting seems to imply some use of the blade's edge.  I simply said that the edge wasn't used to kill, though it was used to deliver wounds that can break down an opponents defense over time.  Looks like we pretty much agree with each other.

I didn't get into rapier & dagger either, except to mention one of the daggers functions (as described by someone else).  I agree that the dagger took on a larger role than simply "secondary pointy thing".  Then again, the rapier as a weapon, and the cut-and-thrust style as a whole follws numerous combat philosophies that have been hotly debated for hundreds of years.  I tried to avoid suggesting "this is how you fight with a rapier" because there are too many contradictory styles out there to suggest just one.  Since this thread is informational, I try to just put out the "facts" and let personal preference slide.  

These are the facts that I tried to put out, although my lenghty posts might be clouding the waters:

Although I did originally say that the rapier's edge was just used to prevent hand-parrying, this was in reference to the elizabethan rapier of early sevententh century england.  As rapiers came into common use, and especially after being integrated into military use, their style changed enough to make this statement untrue.  Also, the practice of hand-parrying fell out of use with these changes, as later manuals on swordsmanship will attest.

The rapier has come to represent not just the specific english weapon, but all "cut-and-thrust" weapons.  Due to that, any claims of "all rapiers..." need to be tempered with the knowledge that there possibly exists a school of combat, and a rapier designed for it, that contradicts your claim.

However, it seems that tauman and I are pretty much in agreement (I'm sure he'll say something if I'm off on this).  I just wanted to clarify my statements so it didn't seem as if I'm pushing an idea that I'm not.

As far as the dagger goes, I'm not a professional knife thrower.  I learned how to throw a knife in a combat training course while in the army.  The knives I learned the throw (bayonet, K-bar) were not meant to be used that way.  I was also taught that, throwing a knife is not the best way to use it.  Knife throwing was taught to me as a last ditch effort and a poor one at that.  In a combat situation it's better to sneak up on someone and cut their throat.  Use the strengths of the weapon (silence) rather than it's weaknesses (range).

However, these are all philosophies and as such can't be taken as "fact".  Playing characters who operate outside of what's expected is one of my favorite things to do while roleplaying.  My favorite character hurls knives like nobody's business.

As far as what the U.S. Army teaches regarding knife throwing (good luck finding the regs, the class lasted all of two hours compared to the weeks spent familiarizing oneself with just about every other weapon), the official us army website that contains the army regulations has them on lockdown.  I'll link it so you can bang your head against their firewall if you like.  As far as buying army regs, you don't need to.  The declassified ones are free and the classified ones are...surprise...not on sale.

Getting military manuals from places other than their official source is easy, but probably inaccurate.  The free ones I looked at got the Initial Entry Training manual wrong so I wouldn't go to them for Advanced Weapons Training or Special Operations Combat Training advice.  The IET manual is free and you get it for enlisting.  You don't even have to pass basic training to get your hands on this information and these guys get it wrong.

I know I said I wouldn't link, but this website does have numerous training manuals regarding the proper use of military equipment.  Actually, you'd be surprised at what's not top secret compared to the few things that are.  If you're trying to find the "army way" to throw a knife, you're going to want anything labeled combat training.  But, as a rule, the US Army doesn't give it's killin' methods away for free.  If they did that, how would they fill their psycho killing machine quota?

Anyhoo, here's the official library of training manuals for the U.S. Army:
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/

[Tash]

Swords were carried on the back, however it was more of a traveling-thing, it was not very common. Also, check out Hyaku's comments. He practices with LONG swords, 3-4 feet + handles. He argues that its near impossible to draw a sword of that length from your shoulder.  (I think that idea will probably matchup with the experiences of those who study long & great swords).

What?  You can't keep a sword on your back?  But Xena did it!  And Ninja did it in an old James Bond movie!  And Mel Gibson did it in Brave Heart!  It is a faster way to draw the weapon, and in fact, people didn't usually carry swords on their belts!

lol!  I love myths.

Come one, everyone knows the proper place to wear your sword is under your trenchcoat...:)