Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andrew
Titus,
Where did you hear this? I am genuinely interested in your sources, particularly if they refute my understaning and beliefs about these swords. 
Best,
Andrew |
I've seen pictures of them, and in historical movies such as Suriyothai, and I think I must have read some from your website. I know that the way the Siamese fought in the early days of great conflicts is different than later. Later, the style of fighting with swords is a lot faster...ofcourse fighting with one hand is a lot faster. The reason is that their was a need to fight more. The Burmese threat had become increasingly very dangerous, quarrelsome, and very real. The Burman, the largest ethnic group in Burma, had subdued and passified other ethnic groups living in Burma and are also using their man power to fight wars with Ayutthaya, which was a very difficult kingdom to conquer. As a result, they always outnumbered the Ayutthaya. They only managed to seize it twice, and both times the kingdom was weaken by internal corruptions, bickerings, and traitors willing to give up the secrets of the citie's defense for a price (at one the traitor was no other than the father of the Siamese heroic King Narasuen, a great national hero...the irony that is). But what the Burmese failed to destroy was the people's spirit...like Hannabal failed to destroy Rome's spirit...the spirit of the Siamese people lived on and eventually they drove out the Burmese like Rome's vengance against Carthage and Hannibal, which eventually lead to the destruction of Carthage itself. So they didn't really conquer Siam, which went on the raise another army to defeat the Burmese like Rome.