Backwards hit on WWII-era Moro Kris. Mistake?

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by DaveA

In the case of kris, the "upside down" position of the longer portion of the ganja might protect the fingers better if one's downward slash attack was blocked by a sword -- or a rifle barrel/bayonet -- meeting it in an upward stroke and sliding down the blade. While there are many possible attacks with a sword (and defenses), typically a rifle (with or without bayonet) is most effective when pointed directly at an enemy. An upward block to a downward slash makes sense in this case. Furthermore, IMHO, the attacker has a better chance of catching the bayonet, or hooking the rifle barrel, and redirecting it in this backward configuration.

I don't think you gain significant hand protection from your attack being blocked by reversing the grip. Also, if you're close enough to hit them, they're not facing you in a classic bayonet fencing stance - not enough room. Having your hand hit by a bayonet blocking your attack is not the problem; the problem is being bayoneted while getting into range.

If you decide that a kris is used like a European smallsword, for parry-riposte modern style European fencing, then the reversed grip looks attractive. But that isn't how the weapon is traditionally used, and it won't be a very effective style of using the weapon (unless one has rules in place to make it so).

I don't think reversed grips are mostly accidental. I think a lot of it is "Stupid natives can't even put their handles the right way around; I'll fix it." Reversing the grip can do bad things to the ergonomics of the weapon, but perhaps armchair fencing theoreticians don't notice.

More generally, "guards" on swords, especially on simple crucifom hilts (the classic European Medieval style), have much less protective "guarding" function than commonly supposed. You don't block with it. It won't protect your hands when your attacks are blocked. They're very good for making it harder for your opponent to disengage to continue an attack - long guards are nice on large heavy swords because you want the opponent to take as long as possible to make that second attack so that you have time to move the sword (or move around the sword - a really big sword, say about 2.5-3kg is a dance partner).

But guards have disadvantages. They offer handholds to the opponent when grappling, can snag when drawing the weapon, and more. If you don't fight in a way that uses it, it's of little benefit but still has the drawbacks. So sometimes no guard is better.

[Rick]

As far as I can figure on a properly hilted kalis the forehand stroke would be the Chop and the backhand the Draw stroke. or slash .
Possibly the re-oriented hilt was meant as a symbol of peaceful intent since it rendered the sword virtually useless .

[DaveA]

I am grateful to Timo for analyzing my line of thinking on possible sword fighting reasons for the reverse handle. As an armchair (at one time, standing) fencer myself, it is a good reminder to me and my ilk how little we know of the actual historical use of these weapons, and how important that might (or might not) be in understanding their form.

Is it known whether kris-bearing fighters carried a knife or other weapon in their offhand?

Rick's thought about a reversed hilt as a symbol of peace reminded me of something I read about an Indonesian weapon (can't remember keris or badik or something else with a prominent directional hilt). One would typically wear the weapon with the hilt facing the "wrong way". In a dispute, rotating the weapon in one's sash was a way of escalating the dispute by suggesting imminent violence without actually drawing the weapon.

To bolster Rick's thought, if we assume most days were peaceful, and if following Indonesian custom, the well-decorated (prestigious) side of the scabbard would not be visible if the entire weapon were reversed. Solution: just reverse the hilt and one can demonstrate both peaceful intent and display the decorated side of the scabbard. Evidence for this theory might be a relative disparity in the numbers of reversed handles found on prestigious kris versus more ordinary kris whose primary purpose was clearly fighting, not display of wealth.

Anyway, it's just a thought from an armchair theorist. Thank you everyone for your keen observations.

Dave A.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by DaveA

I am grateful to Timo for analyzing my line of thinking on possible sword fighting reasons for the reverse handle. As an armchair (at one time, standing) fencer myself, it is a good reminder to me and my ilk how little we know of the actual historical use of these weapons, and how important that might (or might not) be in understanding their form.

Is it known whether kris-bearing fighters carried a knife or other weapon in their offhand?

In the old days, if you went out to fight in battle, you would take your shield.

For when you have no shield with you, then what do you do with the off-hand? I don't know of any good historical written sources. What about modern martial arts? The relevant art would be silat, which is, alas, probably the major Asian martial arts family I know the least about. I don't know about two-weapons in silat, but can say something about off-hand with single weapon. For short swords, if you're not using a shield or a second weapon, the off-hand is useful for trapping and deflecting, and grappling. For trapping, the ideal target is the upper arm near the elbow - push against the body, and the motion of the weapon arm is greatly restricted. For deflecting/blocking/parrying with the off-hand, if their weapon can reach your body, you can reach their forearm with your off-hand to deflect/block/parry (of course, you can do the same with your weapon, which is much more effective than blocking their weapon).

All this is possible, important, and/or essential because of the body-to-body distance when in weapon range. It's even more important with knife. It's this short range that makes European-style parry-riposte fencing non-optimal - the opponent can trap and move in to very close range; using the weapon this way also exposes the forearm a lot. This kind of stuff with the off-hand starts to get harder to do when you exceed about 24" of blade, but can work for longer weapons as an occasional technique.

Escrima/arnis/kali of the northern Philippines is big on two-weapons, either sword and knife or two short swords, or sticks originally acting as substitutes for such. But one of its roots is Spanish rapier and dagger, so it doesn't tell us that much about the use of the off-hand with kris.

A lot of Chinese martial arts are big on two weapons. There, it's mostly as an equaliser for short weapons against spear (in my opinion, the spear still has a large advantage, ceteris paribus, but two short weapons against spear is much better than one; against a naive spearman, it can work very well).

[kai]

Hello Timo,

In the old days, if you went out to fight in battle, you would take your shield.

Yes, definitely. After having spent your arrows, a spear would usually be the primary weapon before closing in (or in an ambush situation).

For when you have no shield with you, then what do you do with the off-hand?

Grab a backup weapon when already close in. For barung it seems to have been common to hold the scabbard along the forearm as an impromptu security measure.

All this is possible, important, and/or essential because of the body-to-body distance when in weapon range. It's even more important with knife. It's this short range that makes European-style parry-riposte fencing non-optimal - the opponent can trap and move in to very close range; using the weapon this way also exposes the forearm a lot. This kind of stuff with the off-hand starts to get harder to do when you exceed about 24" of blade, but can work for longer weapons as an occasional technique.

Yup. Long story short, the Moro kris is not meant for fencing. And it worked well enough to keep the Spanish at bay.

Escrima/arnis/kali of the northern Philippines is big on two-weapons, either sword and knife or two short swords, or sticks originally acting as substitutes for such. But one of its roots is Spanish rapier and dagger, so it doesn't tell us that much about the use of the off-hand with kris.

I believe it's fair to assume that quite a bit of what we see in traditional Visayan styles has specifically been developed to counter Moro raiders.

A lot of Chinese martial arts are big on two weapons. There, it's mostly as an equaliser for short weapons against spear (in my opinion, the spear still has a large advantage, ceteris paribus, but two short weapons against spear is much better than one; against a naive spearman, it can work very well).

With so many Chinese styles obviously based on the spear, having to face a naive spearman would be akin to a lottery win though. In the old days that is...

Regards,
Kai

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by kai

Grab a backup weapon when already close in. For barung it seems to have been common to hold the scabbard along the forearm as an impromptu security measure.

Do you know any sources describing this? Or, more generally, technical details of fighting by Moros. It's easy to find descriptions of the preparation and appearance of juramentados, Moro fearlessness, etc., but hard to find anything technically useful about the way they fought.

In most photos of Moros with 2 weapons that I've seen, one of the weapons is a spear. (Could be small knives I don't see.) I can only remember one photo of a Moro with two swords (modern photo, an old man with 2 barong).

Originally Posted by kai

I believe it's fair to assume that quite a bit of what we see in traditional Visayan styles has specifically been developed to counter Moro raiders.

Yes. Many people push myth about escrima/kali/arnis descending from Moro martial arts, but that doesn't seem to have more substance than other empty martial arts origin myths. Instead, anti-Moro, with indigenous and Spanish elements.

N. R. Nepangue & C. C. Machador, "Cebuano Eskrima: Beyond the Myth", Xlibris, 2007, discusses this and the myths. I don't think they like the myths or the myth-makers very much.

Originally Posted by kai

With so many Chinese styles obviously based on the spear, having to face a naive spearman would be akin to a lottery win though. In the old days that is...

Serious Chinese martial artists would not be naive about spears, from either end of the spear. But most people who carried spears at some time in their life in China were probably not serious martial artists. It takes so little training to make somebody dangerous with a spear, so it isn't necessary to train them intensively for most purposes.

[kai]

Hello Dave,

Rick's thought about a reversed hilt as a symbol of peace reminded me of something I read about an Indonesian weapon (can't remember keris or badik or something else with a prominent directional hilt). One would typically wear the weapon with the hilt facing the "wrong way". In a dispute, rotating the weapon in one's sash was a way of escalating the dispute by suggesting imminent violence without actually drawing the weapon.

In a kraton setting, reversing the grip of a keris may have been enforced in a few cases in Indonesia. All other weapons have tightly set hilts as have been keris hilts in cultures which actually preserved the use of the keris as weapon. Any Moro datu (or sultan to village chief throughout the archipelago) had retainers with him - bodyguards who made it very clear that they would make sure that any unwise move were your last one.

To bolster Rick's thought, if we assume most days were peaceful,

Nah, Moro is a warrior culture. Infighting may have been more common than raiding parties...


No self-respecting Moro would have carried a kris (his alter ego and sign of manhood) in a crippled "fashion" - no way. Most average folks could only afford to own a single kris and the Moro kris hilt can only be changed with quite some effort. Do the math...

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Yes, David, I'm with you!

IMHO Timo put it quite nicely:

Originally Posted by Timo

I don't think reversed grips are mostly accidental. I think a lot of it is "Stupid natives can't even put their handles the right way around; I'll fix it." Reversing the grip can do bad things to the ergonomics of the weapon, but perhaps armchair fencing theoreticians don't notice.

Short attention spans of wanna-be restorers will also often give the same result...

What I meant would be nice to have better numbers on is Detlef's observation that the display side of later MOP scabbards may favor a different way of carrying the sword in the sash. I'm not convinced yet since I've seen quite a few antique scabbards with the same "upside down" configuration (i. e. the lower edge with the elephant/eagle facing upwards).

BTW, does anyone have an antique pic of a Moro carrying his sword for use with the left hand? To make sure that the negative didn't just got reversed, there needs to be some kind of letters visible on the scene itself or, more likely, western military personell with asymmetric uniforms.

Regards,
Kai

[Sajen]

Hello Kai,

in this thread: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=WWII+kris (post #20) is a old picture with a "upside down" scabbard and here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=kalis are shown two old blades with later replacement scabbards in the same fashion. Actually is a WWII or later kris listed by ebay with a "upside down" scabbard, Will post pictures when the auction is ended. I've seen some more in the last years but unfortunately I haven't saved the pictures.

Regards,
Detlef