Swords as serious combat weapons in today's world?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike,

You'd have to train w/ a spear to understand. I think you could beat most swordsmen with a 6-8 foot spear with half an hour's instruction and practice...In Japan, certain types of spears became known as "women's weapons" because of their ease of use.

John
 
jshirley, not exactly

here's a decent explanation from ellis amdur

Bushi women were trained mainly with the naginata because of its versatility against all manner of enemies and weapons. It was generally the responsibility of women to protect their homes rather than go off to battle, so it was important that they become skilled in a few weapons that offered the best range of techniques to defend against marauders who often attacked on horseback. Therefore, it makes sense that women were sometimes adept with the bow due to its effectiveness at long-range and often with the naginata as it was an effective weapon against horse riders at closer range. In addition, most women are weakest at close quarters where men can bring their greater weight and strength to bear. A strong, lithe woman armed with a naginata could keep all but the best warriors at a distance, where the advantages of strength, weight, or sword counted for less.
Click to expand...

in other words, it's not that they're easy to use, but
a) women needed the leverage to compete with men
b) pole arms somewhat reduce the disadvantage of fighting on foot against horsemen
c) versatility
(not necessarly in that order)

this sort of thing has been argued ad nauseum, but i don't believe there's any consensus that spears beat swords. if that were even remotely true, then i doubt swords would have ever evolved. (i mean, from the stone age)
 
I was thinking through Coronach's comment about the sabre winning against the epee or foil. Of course, one never swings the foil or epee, and as a result foil fencers don't learn to parry a swinging attack. Could that be the real reason the sabres won? Of course, you don't get to pick the opponent's weapon in a battle or street fight either. As someone else said, though, when everyone carried swords the epee style was the weapon of choice, at least until the smallsword or "town sword" came into vogue. Rambling a little, I guess.
 
Last edited:
the sabre winning against the epee or foil
Click to expand...
Is that really right? I've always heard that the epee almost always wins cross-weapon competitions. Of course, it's been awhile since my fencing days and I may have garbled things up in my head...

I guess the next question is exactly what kinds of rule changes were made in these competitions?
 
In the "spear vs sword" debate, how does the naginata (basically a short, wide sword blade on a pole) sit? As I understand it, the naginata was employed in Japan as a home defense weapon, was used widely by women and men and was even used on horseback.

Of course this discussion is all theoretical, hypothetical and probably irrelevant ..... but its interesting.

Spinner
 
I was thinking through Coronach's comment about the sabre winning against the epee or foil. Of course, one never swings the foil or epee, and as a result foil fencers don't learn to parry a swinging attack. Could that be the real reason the sabres won? Of course, you don't get to pick the opponent's weapon in a battle or street fight either. As someone else said, though, when everyone carried swords the epee style was the weapon of choice, at least until the smallsword or "town sword" came into vogue. Rambling a little, I guess.
Click to expand...
Well, ours was only one club doing this, so YMMV. Also, it all depends on what rules for target area and ROW you use. My theory, though, was pretty simple: sabres can thrust. Epees cannot slash. It means the person defending against the epee needs to counter only one form of attack, but someone defending against a sabre needs to watch out for a number of possible attacks.

One thing this doesn't address is severity of wounds. A rapier through the chest will be more harmful than a saber cutting your forearm. OTOH, a saber cutting your sword arm is also more harmful than a rapier doinking your pinkie toe. So, it cuts (ha!) both ways.

Mike
 
Despite what you see in hollywierd, the secutor usually slew the retiarius.
A spear is a very bad choice for facing a double-edged sword. Reason: The shaft is light wood, the swing of a gladuis or Xiphos or Spatha or knightly longsword would have split in half. After which, the spearman is toast.
 
a mediocre spear wielder usually beats a good swordsman.



are you on crack?
Click to expand...

The spear is a fearsome, flexible, and often underestimated weapon. It outranges the sword, it's very fast in the attack, and straight stabs with a spear are almost impossible to parry well with a sword blade. The spear wielder can retract the point and repeat the attack much faster than the swordsman can swing the blade through a parry. In addition, most fighting spears have butt spikes and can be used with both ends to good effect.

You really have to try it for yourself and go up against a spear-armed opponent just for the educational effect.

If the spear wielder has even a moderate amount of skill with his weapon, it would take a pretty good swordsman or three to get the better of the spearman.

A spear is a very bad choice for facing a double-edged sword. Reason: The shaft is light wood, the swing of a gladuis or Xiphos or Spatha or knightly longsword would have split in half. After which, the spearman is toast.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Spear shafts were, and are, not made of light wood, but rather very tough and durable wood types that offer a surprising amount of resistance to a glancing blow from a blade. Besides, even if this was not so, the mechanics involved are nothing like chopping a spear-sized stationary stick in half with a sword.

For edification, use your favorite sword blade and try to hack a friend's broomstick in two while he's holding it in a fighting stance. Physics are not on your side. Now have your friend duct tape a Sharpie to the end of the broomstick and see if you can hack the broomstick in two before you get a mark on your shirt.

Unless your broomstick-armed friend is a slug on Thorazine, you'll get marked many times over before you can damage even a lowly broomstick enough to make it snap.
 
The spear is a fearsome, flexible, and often underestimated weapon. It outranges the sword, it's very fast in the attack, and straight stabs with a spear are almost impossible to parry well with a sword blade. The spear wielder can retract the point and repeat the attack much faster than the swordsman can swing the blade through a parry. In addition, most fighting spears have butt spikes and can be used with both ends to good effect.
Click to expand...

Tee.. "the razzle dazzle-pool cue-sewing machine trick" in other words. :D

Count me in with the spear guys on this one. (Well, after all the boomsticks, of course) :)
 
It all depends, just like firearms, on what you are comfortable with.

The well trained spear and the well trained sword each have adgvantages.

If the swordsman is smart he can beat aside the spear and quickly close witht the opponent.

If the spear man is smart he will use the but of the spear a sa staff and not allow the swordsman to close.
 
i think the biggest argument against spears being far superior to swords is that both have been around for hundreds of years, some cultures used both swords and spears. if spears were far superior swords would have went obsolete. being rasied around both items and training with them one would quickly realize if one far outweighed the other. same thing in combat...if you go to war against a spear based force with swords and they butcher u...one would come to terms with the reality of the situation.
 
As mentioned earlier...swords were often status symbols, and they, much like the modern pistol vs. longarm, were much more convenient to carry around for daily usage. "Just like firearms", it it not "what you are comfortable with", but what is generally more effective. On the battlefield, a force armed with sidearms vs. a similar force armed with longarms will be defeated.

Studying just a wee bit will show that even those armed with swords often- if not usually- employed other weapons until at very close range...or their other weapons were broken. Ergo, the sword is not the ne plus ultra of manual weapons, just a common one.

"Smart swordsman" or not, it takes a lot of skill or a mountain of luck for a swordsman to take a spearman.

John
 
I digress.

A man who feels natural with a sword will be better with it than if he had recieved equal training with a spear.

IE, take a man and train him two years with a spear and two years with a sword. Say he is more comfortable with a sword.

Clone the man, through some magical process, and arm one with a spear and one with a sword.

The man with the sword will be better with it, faster, and more coardininated- allowing him to defeat his spear armed clone- even though they both recieved equal training.

Also, a man witha sword can have a shield- the spear man can have a small one perhaps, but no more.

That said- i belive mass spears are superior tactics to mass swords.
 
If my soldiers can kill the enemy before said enemy comes into his engagement rage, I don't give a damn how "natural" my soldiers feel.

I am very much at home with a 6' or so staff. It feels very natural to me. If I somehow found myself defending with such a staff against someone with a spear, I would hope the gods just happened to be smiling at me. OTOH, despite my love for and skill with a staff, I happen to know I would be much more deadly with a spear, or much better yet, a carbine.

Oh, ick. That carbine feels so unnatural. Alas.

John
 
swords

1. I was trained under a WWII Ghurka who has over 200 combat kills and who carries a portfolio with him.
His comments. A Gurhka = 8 enemy, in terms of casualties.
SF = 120 enemy, in terms of caualties - better equipment.
The real value in training is learning how to fight at night and approach and depart silently.

2. I trained in escrima - same motions of the body and arms. Ditto for knife fighting. My days are over - rotator cuff surgeries on both arms and can't take blows any more.

3. Contrary to popular belief, you don't want a razor sharp edge on the sword or a knife. Think about this. You want a hacking and ripping tool, not a tv gingsu knife. The exception to this comment is that a serrated blade allows you to filet someone. Sure, you sharpen somewhat an entrenching tool, but you don't make it razor sharp.

4. Comments about not carrying swords because the military is smart and would issue them. Geezzzzzzz. Why did people on leave in Vietnam buy their own scopes for M16s? Why does the Lt. Col. in charge of Army rifle development critize the M16 for having debries blow back in the chamber for the last 40 years? Bayonet training was discontinued in the United States Army when I was in. Was it because the Army was smart? Or how about being taught not to shoot over 300 yards with an M14 and doing it only from set positions? Would you rather learn how to shoot on the walk, the run, covering 360 degrees and while moving? I don't have faith that "military" means better.

6. Swords. Modern, combat swords are expensive. There is no doubt about it. You don't find them at K-Mart, Walmart or Big 5. I was a dealer for a name brand knife and sword maker. Even at that, the swords needed modification after purchase.

7. Yes, I wore a sword in the Golden Triangle. When you run into someone wearing a sword in the field, get close to that guy and hang with him. They are generally very serious people.
 
Hee.

I have some second-degree contacts in Nepal. What was the name of the
WWII Ghurka who has over 200 combat kills
Click to expand...
, and why is it important we know he "carries a portfolio with him"?

John

PS- ever been to a good Civil War museum? The one at Stone Mountain's not bad. They show a few examples of huge bowies Southern Soldiers often brought to war with them...usually one of the first things to be pitched when the marching started...but, don't believe me. Feel free to ask resident Civil War expert and Blackpowder mod 4v50Gary if I'm blowing smoke. :)
 
Professor Karl Friday is a professor of Japanese history at the University of Georgia. He's also menkyo kaiden in Kashima Shinryu, a koryu (traditional martial art). His research, conducted in Japan, on the subject of battlefield casualties shows that more casualties were recorded as being inflicted by thrown rocks than swords. Arrow injuries were also more common. The sword was not a main battlefield weapon in Japan. It was what you used when you broke or lost your main weapon while trying to get to a polearm that had fallen or pick up some more arrows.
 
, and why is it important we know he "carries a portfolio with him"?
Click to expand...

If he's talking about Dr. Gyi, which I assume he is, Dr. Gyi has a nice photo album with examples of 'cosmetic surgery' performed by Gurkha's :evil:

BTW, it's always a good idea to look what used to be common in wars. Seems you're overlooking the halibard, which was quite common in many wars. And if they used it a lot, you can bet it worked.
Trying something out in the dojo is one thing, going to battle another.
 
hi

Yes, Dr. Gyi.

My swords were made by Barry Dawson.

It is not a matter of taking a knife to a gunfght. It is learning the skills to allow you to use a lowtech weapon effectively. More specifically, it is learning movement in darkness without noise, having the patience to do a 2 or 3 stalk before attacking.

Ok JShirley asked. Dr. Gyi carrys photographs of people killed with Ghurka knives. They show the cuts. And at the time of my class, it was 209 kills. BFD. It wasn't for the glory or sickness.
 
Heh. I rather thought that was the case.

There have been many tough, brave Ghurkhas, and anyone who's spent a little time in this forum knows I love the kukuri. That in no way validates the claims of posers.

John
 
"It is not a matter of taking a knife to a gunfght. It is learning the skills to allow you to use a lowtech weapon effectively. More specifically, it is learning movement in darkness without noise, having the patience to do a 2 or 3 stalk before attacking."

if you are sneaking up behind someone in the dark to a range of within 3 feet a knife would be nearly as effective for the kill, have many other uses besides killing, and take up way less space and weight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Samurai swords don't run out of bullets...
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
5K
Beaux Nehr
B
W
  • Locked
Is there a samurai sword expert in the house?
Replies
21
Views
2K
hso
hso
D
  • Locked
Japanese Steel
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Boberama
B
lobo9er
  • Locked
800 AD "Samurai" swords vs New metallurgy
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
JShirley
JShirley
hso
  • Locked
Good advice from Rock Island Auctions
Replies
0
Views
406
hso
hso
Back
Top