Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

kronckew · 20th August 2016, 07:18 AM

one of my swords came with a copy of it's british proof test passing. blade was clamped and tip moved to either side 30 degrees and had to spring back to zero each time.

a certain amount of flex is good, for shock absorption, but too much can prevent a thrust or ruin a cut, especially if the opponent has any kind of armour or padding. a wobbly blade is not designed to do either, it's designed that way in a few indian and chinese weapons to enhance the wobble and flutter to make cool noises as it is danced with. some blades, like the pata and wushu dao are degenerate designes based on the older and stiffer weapons actually designed to be used in battle. if ypu see videos of 'stiff' katana cutting stuff, tatami & bamboo, you can be surprised at how much they do wobble during the cut, longitudinally and transverse.

there are still two schools of thought on straight vs. curved blades. straight blades are better for thrusting, curved for cutting. the debate was strong during the latter half of the 19c. people thrust thru tend to die (with certain notable exceptions, like jim bowie in the sandbank via a sword-stick blade), people cut tend to have ghastly disabling wounds, but many with care recover nicely, tho they may remain disabled. modern medicine of course can now save many who would have died, thru techniques learned from past wars. it does take up resources tho.

thus many countries decided to go for straighter blades & emphasized the killing thust. the last cavalry sword design in the USA and the UK were essentially thrusting weapons and were used as short lances, and no emphasis was placed on training to do anything else but poke it into the enemy's body and avoid breaking your wrist as you rode past. cutting emphasizes the exchange of blows and parries in defence, requiring a more static tho fluid movements that need a fair amount of training or experience. in the age of the machine gun, the conscripts had little formal training before they were needed to become cannon fodder in the senseless charges into the spandaus and vickers MGs.

they brutal, facts are tho, that you should try to disable your enemy with a nice gory wound and tie up your enemy with casualties that need manpower to care for, transport and housing, and need precious resources, food and medicines.

a dead man takes no one and needs nothing past his grave digger, while an injured man can take up the precious time of on average 5 people who need food and housing, transport etc. till he is well enough to be sent home to shock his countrymen with his wound scars or missing lopped off limbs.

20th August 2016, 07:18 AM	#99
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,154	one of my swords came with a copy of it's british proof test passing. blade was clamped and tip moved to either side 30 degrees and had to spring back to zero each time. a certain amount of flex is good, for shock absorption, but too much can prevent a thrust or ruin a cut, especially if the opponent has any kind of armour or padding. a wobbly blade is not designed to do either, it's designed that way in a few indian and chinese weapons to enhance the wobble and flutter to make cool noises as it is danced with. some blades, like the pata and wushu dao are degenerate designes based on the older and stiffer weapons actually designed to be used in battle. if ypu see videos of 'stiff' katana cutting stuff, tatami & bamboo, you can be surprised at how much they do wobble during the cut, longitudinally and transverse. there are still two schools of thought on straight vs. curved blades. straight blades are better for thrusting, curved for cutting. the debate was strong during the latter half of the 19c. people thrust thru tend to die (with certain notable exceptions, like jim bowie in the sandbank via a sword-stick blade), people cut tend to have ghastly disabling wounds, but many with care recover nicely, tho they may remain disabled. modern medicine of course can now save many who would have died, thru techniques learned from past wars. it does take up resources tho. thus many countries decided to go for straighter blades & emphasized the killing thust. the last cavalry sword design in the USA and the UK were essentially thrusting weapons and were used as short lances, and no emphasis was placed on training to do anything else but poke it into the enemy's body and avoid breaking your wrist as you rode past. cutting emphasizes the exchange of blows and parries in defence, requiring a more static tho fluid movements that need a fair amount of training or experience. in the age of the machine gun, the conscripts had little formal training before they were needed to become cannon fodder in the senseless charges into the spandaus and vickers MGs. they brutal, facts are tho, that you should try to disable your enemy with a nice gory wound and tie up your enemy with casualties that need manpower to care for, transport and housing, and need precious resources, food and medicines. a dead man takes no one and needs nothing past his grave digger, while an injured man can take up the precious time of on average 5 people who need food and housing, transport etc. till he is well enough to be sent home to shock his countrymen with his wound scars or missing lopped off limbs.