First Game, and Thoughts Thereof

[Durgil]

What'ya trying to say, eh!?

Heh heh...

Jake

I thought maybe you were referring to TFoB. :-)

I'm just reading this post for the first time today,

Yes prophet, by post, I mean the whole topic, not just your individual post.  I don't think he was belittling you, and I think he was right as was backed up by what Jake said in his post after Bob's comment.

Everyone here, including myself, have at least a few misconseptions about historical accuracy.  When someone states something that doesn't jive with what others think they know, they should come forward and present their opinion.  It's mostly all conjecture anyway.

[svenlein]

What is the title and/or author of this book.  You're teasing me with your posts.

If draw-cuts are not as good at armor and less likely to cause disabling damage, why would they be so popular in so many parts of the world, especially it would seem with mounted troops, (when not using spear-family weapons)?

Scott

[Durgil]

If draw-cuts are not as good at armor and less likely to cause disabling damage, why would they be so popular in so many parts of the world, especially it would seem with mounted troops, (when not using spear-family weapons)?

You do happen to find more draw-cut type of weapons in warmer areas of the world where heavier armours were not practical due to the climate, or in parts of the world with less effective armour as in Far-eastern Asia.  I'm not trying to start an argument about samurai armour, it was very effective against those types of weapons, but IMO it could not withstand an attack from the typical weapons of Western Europe.

[svenlein]

So assuming you're mostly facing people with lighter armor why would you choose a curved blade?

[Jake Norwood]

I'm basically going to agree with Tony/Durgil. The regions that are famouse for curved (slicing) blades are not famous for quality armors. Note also that some curved blades, such as the falchion/grosse messer are wicked chopping instruments, and do quite well against many heavier armors.

As for the title of "that book"...I don't know it. The author is John Clements of the ARMA, author of Medieval Swordsmanship and Rennaissance Swordsmanship. For the last 2 years he's been researching basically full-time, and he's got 3 books and a video coming out this year. High-quality stuff.

So assuming you're mostly facing people with lighter armor why would you choose a curved blade?

There are a lot of pros to curved blades. This is also the area where a lot of "mystique" gets messed up with actual physics, so I'm going to try and not spout BS here, but understand that this is a weaker part of what I know. The curved blade allows a chopping motion to benefit from many of the benefits of a draw cut. If the armor is soft in any way (doublet, leather, wood, bone, etc) then the slicing action added to the chopping action is very good. Sabers became the primary cavalry weapon once armor had almost totally phased out, and not before. (I suspect that sabers and the like are good against scale and lammellar, but I don't have anything other than instinct on that one, so don't quote me.) I think that's also a distinction that has to come up in this setting--that in addition to a draw cut (slice) or a chopping strike, there's the between-ground covered by moderately curved blades (like the saber and katana, both of which can be excellent instuments for cutting, and which do have advantages over straight blade designs...they also have disadvantages in comparison to them).

The thing is that people tend to want to know "what's the best weapon," but every weapon is created for a specific purpose. The katana is pretty versatile (I'd say the longsword moreso), but most weapons are very specific to certain situations. Contrary to what some folks will tell you, a great deal of medieval fighting tactics was a lot like rock-paper-scissors when it came to troop types, armors, and especially the weapons that work well agains them.

Jake

[Durgil]

I have no physical experience with any weapons, but I'd think that they would be easier to use.  First, they were so sharp, you don't need as much strength behind your attack like you would with a chopping weapon to wound your opponent and therefore you would be less likely to over extend yourself with your attack if you missed.  Second, with less strength, I’d think that you could concentrate more on your control and thereby miss less often.

[Durgil]

Ah shoot.  You got your post in there while I was writing mine Jake. ;-)

That's great news about John Clements.  I really do like his material!  2003 is looking like it is going to be a very fine year, at least in the area of RPGs and good medieval weapons books.

[Valamir]

One explanation for some curved blades that I've read (sabres and some scimitars) relates to their mounted use.  Sabres from horseback would often be used to thrust with the arm extended and relying on the horse's momentum to drive it home, after which the arm would be relaxed and the horses continued momentum would drag the blade out of the body as it passed.  It was suggested that a slightly curved blade pulls free of the body much easier and more cleanly, where as a straight blade would be more likely to be jerked from the wielder's grasp.

[svenlein]

there's the between-ground covered by moderately curved blades (like the saber and katana, both of which can be excellent instuments for cutting, and which do have advantages over straight blade designs...they also have disadvantages in comparison to them).

Other than the trade-offs mentioned so far, what are some of the other trade-offs you elude to?

I would like to express my joy over this tread...yeah!

Scott

[prophet118]

well they dropped the line because they felt it had no niche in the market, and when they dropped it, all the changeling players got a bit peeved

[Jake Norwood]

um, was that post supposed to be in another thread?

I've never seen anything that makes curved blades easier to use. I love my cavalry saber (it's an authentic 1864 piece), and even though dull it cuts beautifully. Despite that, it's tricker to use than a straight blade, and much less versatile.

Here's some pros to straight blades over curved.
Straight blades...
...can cut equally well with both edges, enabling more cuts from more directions withought turning the hands, and wicked winding and binding maneuvers (which is hard to explain in less than a few paragraphs, so I won't).
...generally come equipped with pommels and meaner cross-guards. I'm not sure why this is (some curved swords, like the messer, have mean crosses--but I've probably only very rarely really seen a pommelled and truly curved blade). Both of these items of sword-furniture are very useful in a grat number of actions.
...thrust more efficiently and simply.
...enable more half-swording techniques and transfer the principles of their use into polearms of many lengths (the more curved the sword, the harder this is).

Jake

[contracycle]

I don't think that curved blades are easier to use in any particular sense, but probably rather harder becuase the motion is more complex, more specialised.  I don't think that you can just pick up the katana and draw-cut with it the way it is meant to be used.  It is not the force of the blow but its placement which does the damage.

Also, IMO, I rather disagree about the armour thing.  Im not sure how an iron and lamellar clamshell breastplate can be considered light armour.  I find it difficulty to see the chinese military developments, with mediaeval cataphracts and experience against central asian armoured cavalry, which is the military milieu for this proposed aesthetic of light military hardware, producing weaponry and techniques based on the absence of heavy armour.

Furthermore, a curved blade requires better metallurgy than a simple straight blade, and IMO the phasing out of straight cutting blades occurs through technical development simply becuase if the blade is intended to cut, a curved surface is always better than a small straight one.  We went from blades we used for everything to specialised tools for thrusting and cutting, designed appropriately in each case, IMO.

[svenlein]

contracycle - I believe strait blades where the norm in China during most periods.
Jake - so other than when mounted why would one preferr a curved blade?
Jake - when on foot, when would draw-cuts be more atractive to use?
Possibly - cuts are more likely to get lodged in your opponent than draw-cuts so you go with draw-cuts to avoid being cut down by a second opponent?
Other reasons?

Also I definatly have started doing it, but others may not have: my mind has started saying curved=draw-cut strait=thrust or cut, I need to be careful not to over generalize.

[prophet118]

while it is the sterotype that curved blades (katana usually) were not designed for thrusts, you would actually be dead wrong

as someone who watches a crap load of the history channel, and more importantly has seen the week long special they did on all sorts of weapons (spears and lances, shields and armor, swords and daggers, castles and sieges) i can tell you, that a katana can thrust, and did, the typical style for thrusting with a katana , was to turn it over, so that the curve was up

now thats not to say im anywhere near expert level, however these shows were made with the royal armory overseas...


also on another show which featured two guys from arma (might have been that john clements guy, id have to go back and watch the tape)

the basic methodology with swords had to do with how much material it had to move out of the way for its "bite", a large sword (claymore) was effectively a large club that could cut.. the more celtic style weaspons were not designed as say a long sword, or even a rapier, they were not as sharp and as such, you had to make a more massive swing....

and in fact listed casualities frrom that show include many people who died of broken collar bones...

but again, i aint an expert, im simply reporting what i have seen

[Jasper]

Not to criticisize anything you have specifically said, Prophet, but rather a general caution: the History channel has not always had the best reputation for strict accuracy, especially with such off the beaten track subjects as ancients arms.  They have a tendency to (sometimes) parrot the popularly accepted view from some years ago.  At least that has been both my impression and a view which I have heard elsewhere.