Posted: February 08, 2000 at 20:52:21: by Tar-Elenion
: : In addition to everything Martin said about the use of curved swords, the curve also made reading the blade's arc difficult. It was hard to tell where the sword blade would end up. The curve also added strength to the blade. When using a straight, double-edged sword, the weilder would have to remember to block using the flat of the blade. Otherwise, at best, the blade would be notched, and at worst, it could result in a shattered blade (for either combatant). The Japanese used a slightly curved blade almost to the exclusion of other styles of blades, but these were single-edged weapons that the weilder would have to be trained (extensively) to use.It is a common idea that the Japanese sword required more extensive traing than a European blade to use effectively but the idea itself is not accurate. The sword schools of medieval and renaissance Europe were as fully complete as any Japanese ryu and can be deccumented to earlier time periods than the surviving Japanese ryu.
Tar-Elenion :
: An interesting discussion I must say, and one of the more obscure ones I have noted on the board. I feel obligated to respond to a bit of this. . . : Most of what has been put forth is quite accurate, however, I have a few points to make and points to disagree with. In response to some of the info posted in the above message (regarding using a blade as defense), I would like to point out that blocking another heavy blade with the flat of the blade is almost an assured way of having your sword broken. The directed force of the opposing blade impacting the flat of a blade on such a focused line would cause a torquing of the iron/steel that would have been fatal to many blades. The physics dictate that the blade is much stronger on edge than it is across the much thinner "flat." Catching blade on blade is much safer (although there were many notches!) Attacks and parries are made with the edge of the blade if the combatant can at all help it. Note the way the hilts are set parallel, not perpendicular to the edge--to catch an opposing weapon running down the length of the blade. Actually many of the surviving historical manuals such as 'I-33' from the late 1200's, 'Flos Duellatorum' from 1409, and 'Talhoffers Fechtbuch' various editions from the ca.1440-1470 all show the use of the flat of the blade to ward with. Also performing hard blocks with the sword is not a generally recommended by historical masters rather avoid the blow and counter or deflect the blow and use that momentum to attack tends to be preferred methods. Straight bladed swords are generally made to flex along the flat of the blade. : As for other factors: the curved blade as others have indicated is slightly more manueverable and applies the strength of the slash along the length of the blade (as it "slides" through an opponent). However, in addition to the loss of the thrusting ability that a straight sword offers, a curved sword sacrifices reach. A swing that impacts at the outer end of a curved sword will slide off the opponent doing much less damage than a straight edge that will deliver the bulk of the force to the target. As has been pointed out the curved blade is also less effective against heavier armours (plate and heavy chain). It lacks the focused impact and typically curved swords were much lighter than straight-edged swords. The giant Khopesh scimitars are an exception but were wielded by very very few. It should be noted that straight bladed swords of the middle ages are also much lighter than most people think. Most swords used for combat weihged no more than 3lb.
|
