sword fighting

[Talwyn Aureliano]

[quote="Ra'Sona Races-The-Wind":24c9etrw] Just personal scepticism and opinion here, I have no reference for this other that the fact that taking up a wooden sword against a metal one is a rather obviously bad idea.[/quote:24c9etrw]

Actually no...it's not.

The composition of the weapon is not really a major factor.

What is the major factor is the skill of the person weilding the weapon.

A skilled swordsman, armed with a wooden training sword will beat an average one armed with a metal sword.

One of the most famous examples of this goes back to early 17th centuary Japan and its most famous Samurai, Musashi. He engaged in a duel against a highly skilled swordsman armed with just a wooden Bokken [Katana like sword] and defeated his oppenent in a matter of seconds.

from wikipedia:

[color=blue:24c9etrw]In April 13, 1612, Musashi (about age 30) fought his most famous duel, with Sasaki Kojirō, who wielded a [b:24c9etrw]nodachi.[/b:24c9etrw] Musashi came late and unkempt to the appointed place — the remote island of Funajima, north of Kokura. The duel was short. [b:24c9etrw][u:24c9etrw]Musashi killed his opponent with a bokken that he had carved from an oar while traveling to the island[/u:24c9etrw] [/b:24c9etrw]. Musashi fashioned it to be longer than the nodachi, making it closer to a modern suburito.

Musashi's late arrival is controversial. Sasaki's outraged supporters thought it was dishonorable and disrespectful while Musashi's supporters thought it was a fair way to unnerve his opponent. Another theory is that Musashi timed the hour of his arrival to match the turning of the tide. The tide carried him to the island. After his victory, Musashi immediately jumped back in his boat and his flight from Sasaki's vengeful allies was helped by the turning of the tide. Another theory states he waited for the sun to get in the right position. After he dodged a blow Sasaki was blinded by the sun. He briefly established a fencing school that same year[/color:24c9etrw]."


So there you have it: wooden sword defeats metal.

Also, assuming that you will win just because you have a metal weapon while your opponent weilds a wooden one is dangerous and smacks of overconfidence. Always regard any weapon in your enemy's hand to be lethal and never underestitmate your opponent. Focus on your on training and methods and watch and wait for an openning in which to land a critical strike.

It's not the quality of the tool so much but the experience of the workman behind the tool which matters most

[Shihouin10]

Well put, Talwyn. Its all about combat experience and weapon familiarity. You can train all your life in a dojo, but until you can actually utilize your knowledge of fighting into an actual life-or-death combat situation, you can never truly be a warrior.

[Ra'Sona Races-The-Wind]

But, that supports what I said entirely. He was using a wooden sword and superior skill to humiliate another swordsman? >.>

Plus, IIRC the nodachi was more of a cavalry weapon; surprised anyone in an on-foot duel with a master would try and use something so unwieldy, which again explains why the much lighter (and thus faster) wooden sword was a better weapon for the purpose. Nodachi were HUGE weapons, think a spear with a sword blade all the way down. This definitely sounds to me like a master swordsman putting another in his (rather permanent) place for trying to show off with an oversized sword. I do however accept that it's been done, beating an opponent with a wooden sword, but it's a calculated risk nonetheless, and TBH Japanese steel was very low-quality stuff.

On a more pushy note, the quality of the weapon has [i:ah8uhpyc]everything [/i:ah8uhpyc]to do with it. It's not a mutually-exclusive thing to be very skilled, having a weapon of good quality is always very important; skill does [i:ah8uhpyc]not [/i:ah8uhpyc]compensate for having inferior tools. It's a rather dangerous assumption that that is the case and a point on which any soldier today will quickly correct you. For those of a filming bent I direct you to 'the last samurai' with Tom Cruise in an actually very good performance. The masters of war for 1000 years versus some peasants with a years' training if formation rifling. There are two fights for reference, both are less battles than slaughters and together they show very well that neither superior equipment or experience alone can ever make 'all the difference.' Pinch of salt of course, for the Hollywood. You say weapon quality, but I bet you any money you like that Musahi did not make that bokken in one afternoon. that will have been something that was made with care for actual combat.

I'm reminded of a quote: "Whatever happens we have got, the maxim gun and they have not." Arrogant and imperious, but a very fair point. [strike:ah8uhpyc]Everyone says how well the guy in the match was, but do they ever notice who made his gear? No, because it's a thankless job. Lucky if the guy using it complements you on your work himself but oh, use it to great effect and he's [i:ah8uhpyc]lauded [/i:ah8uhpyc]as a hero/master/etc. A hundred, a thousand people could be there and how many would go and ask the smith's name afterwards? None, that's how many. Unless the damn thing's plated with gold and silver and inlaid with jewels you won't get any notice at all. It's hard work and there's not even the opportunity to test your skill against another armourer since they don't exist any more. [i:ah8uhpyc]Equipment matters[/i:ah8uhpyc], a properly balanced sword tailored to an individual's body is a vast improvement on a standard one, a split second of extra speed on the attack or defence makes all the difference in a balanced match and[/strike:ah8uhpyc]Oh wow, and there's my personal stake in this side of the matter made rather obvious. Leaving the rant in because of flavour to the post, but no point in continuing since it's just a complaint about the part of The Guy Who.

And Shihouin (Lorran? Reply page said Shihouin10?), it depends on the kind of fight. Actual soldiers tend to fare less well in ordered duels of skill than people who simply train a lot for contests. You use very different tactics when you actually want to kill someone, and adapting those techniques for a friendly contest of skill is rather difficult. Pulling your punches, obeying the rules of the fight, etc.

I notice that I haven't actually contributed an initial response to the OP; well, I'm not so much of a swordsman myself, but I can have a match without stabbing myself. I'm more in it for the dramatic effect, currently trying to learn a style of using a bastard sword one-handed. It's damn tiring stuff!

[Shihouin10]

Your insight on the matter is noted. What you have said is something I hadn't thought of. But, I agree. It definitely depends on what "fight" is being fought.

[Talwyn Aureliano]

[quote="Ra'Sona Races-The-Wind":3vol21i9]But, that supports what I said entirely. He was using a wooden sword and superior skill to humiliate another swordsman? >.>[/quote:3vol21i9]
I'm not trying to be argumentative here but I read what you previously wrote which was essentially [and I'm paraphrasing here] that wooden swords will be defeated by metal ones, and using such weapons is a "bad idea" and will lead to defeat.

I disagree totally. Proficiency, skill and mastery of the art of combat is paramount to attaining victory. Victory is NEVER certain but being more than capable in using a sword [or any weapon for that matter], be made of metal or wood, will tip the odds heavily in your favour.

However, if you have an equal playing field with two evenly matched opponents or forces, then weapon quality does become a significant factor. Yet any warrior worth their salt and armed with an inferior weapon, will not willingly put themselves in such a position unless they have some trick, tactic etc which they can against their enemy.
On that point scissors beat paper


[quote:3vol21i9] On a more pushy note, the quality of the weapon has [i:3vol21i9]everything [/i:3vol21i9]to do with it. It's not a mutually-exclusive thing to be very skilled, having a weapon of good quality is always very important; skill does [i:3vol21i9]not [/i:3vol21i9]compensate for having inferior tools. [/quote:3vol21i9]



Ra'Sona, a pointed stick can still kill.
How do you rate that as weapon quality? It's a piece of wood with a sharpened end. Or how about a rock? A simple rock that can be thrown or used as a bludgeon can make a mess of anyone.
Your premise that superior craftsmanship of a weapon [ie; better steel, honed edge etc] is just plain wrong. There are probably millions graves full of people who had "superior weapons" and were betean by what they would term as inferior ones which leads me to my next point.

[quote:3vol21i9]I'm reminded of a quote: "Whatever happens we have got, the maxim gun and they have not." Arrogant and imperious, but a very fair point.[/quote:3vol21i9]

Ever heard of Ishandwana? Over a 1000 well trained british infantrymen were slaughtered in a couple of hours by spear weilding Zulus. Yet they [the brits] had "superior" weapons, didn't they?
They lost because of bad leadership which agains comes back to skill. In this case the skill of their commanding officers who were arrogant in the belief that the natives would run after a wiff of gunpowder. They paid the ultimate price for that folly and there are hundreds of other examples throughout history that reinforce the concept that having superior quality weapons will not guarentee you victory in any conflict.

[quote:3vol21i9]I bet you any money you like that Musahi did not make that bokken in one afternoon. that will have been something that was made with care for actual combat.
[/quote:3vol21i9]
Dude, while neither of us were at the duel, a significant number of eyewittnesses were and I suspect Musashi did indeed make his bokken in a short timeas it really doesn't take all that long to whittle away a piece of wood with a sharp tool. This is the most famous duel in Japanese istory and I think they try to stick to the truth in this case as the story really doesn't need to be embellished. Masashi defeated a highly skilled swordsman who was armed with a "superior weapon" because Musashoi was the better tactician and swordsman. Simple as that.

Paper beats scissors

[Shihouin10]

Might I add that the weapon used by Musashi's opponent is [i:zfgxtxkp]not[/i:zfgxtxkp] as unwieldy as made out to be. It is a nodachi, which is, essentially, a katana with a blade about 5-8 inches longer than the average katana. The nodachi is often confused with the very different odachi, because of the names. The odachi that I have has a fifty inch blade and an eighteen inch hilt. The aver age nodachi is maybe about fifty inches, where the odachi is 64-78 inches in length. The difference is easily noticeable.

[Ra'Sona Races-The-Wind]

I see where you stand here, but my point made in the last post wasn't that equipment was more important and metal swords would always beat wooden ones, it was that equipment and skill are both very important factors and in no way mutually exclusive. I was reacting to the apparent claim that 'skill > everything, always' which really isn't the case.

As in, you can have all the skill with sharpened wood you like but if you're wearing some cute boxers and have a stick, the guy driving an IFV is just going to shoot you full of holes, in the same way that you can have your IFV, but if you can't turn it on or load the weapons then you're just gonna sit there until the guy in boxers gets in and shoves a sharp stick in your eye. It's undeniable that skill and experience matters, but if skill was the only issue then no-one would have bothered making spears let alone guns because it'd be far more effective just to be really good at throwing rocks around. Tactics aren't ever one-sided, for everything one guy tries to do to better his position there's someone stopping him from doing it and forcing him to make do with a compromise, and that's where differing weaponry becomes an issue.

On the whole, however, equipment does tend to trump skill. You know, when we're not talking cultural icons and legendary heroes. It's why we have such a thing as the 'arms race' to outdo everyone else's forces in terms of the best gear. I sure as hell can't deflect bullets, and I doubt I'll ever see anyone who can. Unless this proposed skill gap is unnaturally (maybe unrealistically) large, the odds are stacked well against the guy bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I'll have to insist, however, that the quality of the materials used really does matter. Ever wonder why folded steel was developed as a technique, or why samurai didn't wear case armour as in Europe? You can't forge Japanese steel in the same way as steel in Europe, it's too brittle and won't last. The folding was developed just so that it was reliably usable in combat at all. If they'd tried to forge a blade by beating it into shape it would just shatter after a few fights. Maybe even a few blows if they weren't very good craftsmen. Not only that but it's heavier too, and lighter swords are less tiring to use, which is always important. In Europe the spanish steel was sought after as a prized item because of its' qualities, it held a better edge for longer, was lighter and stronger.

Again, it's in no way the be-all, but it's just as reckless to ignore the differing kinds of weaponry in a fight as it is to underestimate the skill of an opponent. The way I see it both are essential, one able to compensate for deficiencies in the other but in a different manner. Basically as I see it improved equipment can close the gap far easier than superior skill, but once it gets to master fighters then improving skill allows a level of competence that equipment at its' best can't quite reach. The [i:1sg49gje]Battousai [/i:1sg49gje]sword style is an excellent example of this, fights between users of that style typically lasted for two or three blows, at which point how sharp your sword is becomes quite meaningless.

Lastly, I wouldn't use Ishandwana as an example of weaponry vs skill since the Zulus had plenty of guns too during that battle, and then there's the subsequent event of Rorke's Drift in which the few soldiers at the supply post held out against overwhelming numbers of Zulus. [strike:1sg49gje]Irrelevant but interesting fact: did you know that the Zulus believed that raising the sights on a gun made the gun itself more powerful? Or that they had a pathological aversion to facing cavalry?[/strike:1sg49gje]

So in summary, while I agree that skill is essential, I don't think it's inherently more essential than equipment, and on the level of a typical person equipment is in fact more important. With regards to a trained soldier I would say that both are equally essential, while only in the sparse ranks of the true elite does skill become the sole issue in combat.




I thought the odachi was a polearm and the daikatana was the somewhat longer one? Hm, according to the handbook I looked it up in a nodachi and odachi are just different translations of the name of the same weapon. Where'd you get your info? I'm quite willing to believe that my tourist's guide to medieval weapons has an error but I'd like to be sure.

[Rhei Lor'akris]

I won't restate it due to lengthy detail, so here: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odachi:3rk6o3t6]Odachi - Wikipedia[/url:3rk6o3t6] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodachi:3rk6o3t6]Nodachi - Wikipedia[/url:3rk6o3t6]

As for the Daikatana, its simply a misnomer resulting from the mistake of westerners in reading the varying ways Kanji is read.

I wouldn't trust that handbook, and would rather rely on researching more historical sources.

[Talwyn Aureliano]

grrr

this is the 3rd attempt to post this due to my fucked up mouse touch pad being overly sensetive and sending me back a few pages I hate it


short version:

Isandlwana is a good example as it showed that the Asagai was VERY effective at melee range over a rifle and bayonet. The Zulu's use of guns was inconsequential and ineffective as they were not skilled or trained properly in their usage.

Also as I mentioned before, bad and incompetent generalship was the main cause for the british defeat. Conversely, at Rorkes Drift, it was the DOCTOR's [Acting Assistant Commissary Dalton] inspired leadership, not Lt's Gonville & Chard, that won the battle. And also showed that inferior numbers armed with superior weaponry will triumph when well lead against a numerically superior enemy in a preperpared position.

As we'll all agree on too, leadership and tactical ability are skills and having them is half of any battle at least.

As to the original post topic, I use a standard Gladius roughly 28 inches in length as well as a weighted wooden training sword which is about 2lbs heavier than the steel gladius! [lead in the spine of the sword ] The heavier training weapon builds up your strength and speed thus when you use the real one, it's like weilding a toy and it becomes VERY dangerous indeed.

here is me!

I love Lorica Segmentata, so much easier to wear over time than chain mail, although if I had to go into battle, I'd put on a light mail shirt under the Lorica for added protection!


[img:37zgapce]http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs31/i/2010/ ... lwyn22.jpg[/img:37zgapce]

[Ra'Sona Races-The-Wind]

Ah, in a leadership position then I agree, no contest at all. I also agree that an asagai is vastly superior up close, as a bayonet is generally a last-ditch weapon when shooting isn't an option, and so is less effective. Still, if we'd only had asagai too then it would barely have slowed them down, given our relative experience. The Zulus were really very good at war, after all. If not for out guns we wouldn't have stood a damn chance. They weren't all that awful with theirs though, hardly up to drilling standard but they knew how to use them and how to effectively use their troops who used them.

Fun fact #2: Chard would never have said anything about sounding like a train in the distance, he was almost completely deaf.


Ave Imperator! Thy kit looks awesome, Tal!
Not anywhere near as decent myself, never had the resources to complete the outfit and then there was uni and so I won't again for some time.


Well, Wiki is hardly known for infallible accuracy, but yes. Guidebook duly discarded for reference purposes.

[olath]

wow never knew that my thread would grow this much, any way every one has made great points and presented them very well , the type of weapon you choose to use is your choice , skill is a good thing but knowledge is what i have come to rely on most knowing what kinda fight you are fight our what kind of fight you want to make it , by all means have a specific weapon and armour set to train with and advance in , but do not stop there practice with all form of arms and armour ,
you never know when you will have to use an un familier weapon in combat do to disarm, availability , or simply you have none on you . as for training goes i have used bokens and i have used the larp style weapons , but i have always and will always prefer real weapons aka sharp weapons , i have used them all my life and will continue to use them as my practice tools (lol as long as someones willing to practice with real ones with me ...) and if you get cut well "I" always say ok whatever i will know the correct parry next time ,



well as far as my preferred weapon set dual scimitars , scynthian bow , long curved dagger a varius other throw away knives , leather armour our just thick cottton style clothing something flexible.


appreciate all the posts keep um coming , later

[Zekafae]

I'd love to learn sword fight/play, I have several swords(collector but the number is kinda too low for my liking) I love my Claymore, and longsword(fancy thing you see in the stoes. I have two katanas, and have been wanting to get my hand on a dai-katana. The biggest thing that i think I can say is that any form of medieval weaponry/combat intrigues me to no end especially swords. And with my build.. me two handing or one handing(if I worked out) large swords seems natural to me.

[Rhei Lor'akris]

Although I have never trained in the use of swords and other weapons, I really like the quick short sword and knife fighting styles, as well as the crafty use of chain weapons.

[Zekafae]

[quote="Rhei Lor'akris":3tfdm729]Although I have never trained in the use of swords and other weapons, I really like the quick short sword and knife fighting styles, as well as the crafty use of chain weapons.[/quote:3tfdm729]

You mean like the kusaigama? The infamous chain sickle. A sickle on one end and a weighted piece of metal on the other. The weapon is seen with other styles as well. come have a small blade others a sharp point. The overall style of it remains the same. A deadly weapon in the hands of a master, however when in an enclosed space, the effectiveness drops off astronomically. Unless the person is also skilled in sword use they're good as dead against a swordsman.

[lawrencez]

I really enjoyed in sword fighting, In fact I have a training now on how to handle a sword.