Quarterstaff Vs Sword
Michelle
Thanks
Zavia
D. Spencer Hines
And who are the two hypothetical Warriors in this fight?
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to understand.
The box John Brigham's guns came in was a gift in itself. He must have
bought it in the Orient when he was a Marine. A mahogany box with the
lid inlaid in mother of pearl. The weapons were pure Brigham, well
worn, well maintained and immaculately clean. An M1911A1 Colt .45
pistol, and a Safari Arms cut-down version of the .45 for concealed
carry, a boot dagger with one serrated edge. Starling had her own
leather." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Michelle" <ma_g...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bbg9k$79e$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
Zavia Tiplady
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:OJJgExXxAHA.338@cpmsnbbsa07...
> Yes.
>
> And who are the two hypothetical Warriors in this fight?
> --
>
ie. Someone highly skilled in the use of swords vs someone highly skilled in
the
use of the quarterstaff.
Are there any historical duels between sword and quarterstaff. If so what
were the outcomes.
Zavia
William Black
Zavia Tiplady <circu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bbj1c$chp$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
Well duels are later than quarterstaffs, and it isn't a gentlemanly weapon
anyway, it's very much a weapon of ordinary people.
There are many different types of sword as well, but as a general rule, in a
fight between equals, the longer weapon tends to win. Think of the
quarterstaff as a spear without a cutting edge at one end.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
MARTIN REBOUL
Michelle wrote...
> Just wondering which would win in a 1 on 1 duel.
Shirt sleeves, or any armour allowed?
If the former, I'll take the sword please. With armour I'm not so sure.....
--
Cheers
Martin
William Black
William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bbt5f$b60$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
>
> Zavia Tiplady <circu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9bbj1c$chp$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> >
what
> > were the outcomes.
>
> Well duels are later than quarterstaffs, and it isn't a gentlemanly
weapon
> anyway, it's very much a weapon of ordinary people.
>
> There are many different types of sword as well, but as a general rule, in
a
> fight between equals, the longer weapon tends to win. Think of the
> quarterstaff as a spear without a cutting edge at one end.
Whops, sorry, just checked and the staff is a weapon shown in Swetnam
(1620) as a self defence weapon, but while he goes into great detail about
sword and dagger duels and how to conduct them the staff is just a weapon
used by travellers.
Donald F. Harrington
judging, there is mention of an account called "Three to One" by Richard
Peeke. Peeke is an English sailor who claims in 1625, using an improvised
quarterstaff, to have defeated three Spaniards armed with rapiers. Brown
does not mention armor. It's anybody's quess how self-serving Peeke's
account is.
Earlier in the same chapter of Brown's book, Silver is quoted as saying that
a man armed with the quarterstaff could defeat two men armed with sword and
dagger. But I would read with caution, as Silver's biases are also known.
Once again, no mention of armor, but I presume that Silver is referring to
civilian, hence unarmored, combat.
There is no doubt that the quarterstaff can be a deadly weapon, even versus
armored foes, but I'm not aware of any scientific comparisons. Didn't even
the lowly club remain a known weapon on the battlefields of the Middle Ages?
Don Harrington
"MARTIN REBOUL" <martin...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:PVeC6.4763$xA.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
William Black
Donald F. Harrington <dharr...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:PzrC6.211$bn.2...@news.uswest.net...
> In "English Martial Arts" by Terry Brown, whose research I have no way of
> judging, there is mention of an account called "Three to One" by Richard
> Peeke. Peeke is an English sailor who claims in 1625, using an improvised
> quarterstaff, to have defeated three Spaniards armed with rapiers. Brown
> does not mention armor. It's anybody's quess how self-serving Peeke's
> account is.
Mr Brown seems to have a point of view which means he looks at some sources
very uncritically and doesn't seem to be aware of some others. Peeke is, at
best, anecdotal.
>
> Earlier in the same chapter of Brown's book, Silver is quoted as saying
that
> a man armed with the quarterstaff could defeat two men armed with sword
and
> dagger. But I would read with caution, as Silver's biases are also known.
> Once again, no mention of armor, but I presume that Silver is referring to
> civilian, hence unarmored, combat.
Silver gives a 'table' of what can beat what, but in my practical
experience any two men will beat a single man, by the simple expedient of
one defending against him and the other going round the back. Silver is an
extremely good read but he is an old man standing in the way of progress and
he defends his position in a manner which would be unacceptable today in any
field but politics.
alex milman
>
> Silver gives a 'table' of what can beat what, but in my practical
> experience any two men will beat a single man, by the simple expedient of
> one defending against him and the other going round the back.
A maneuver, which is definitely beyond the mental capacities of the
movie-villans. :-)
In purely practical terms, if quarterstaffs or clubs had any definite
advantage over the
swords, why weren't they widely adopted as the "primary" weapons? They had
been
much cheaper. I strongly suspect that these wooden weapons _could_ give some
advantages if they had been very long and heavy. Which means that only very
strong
men would be able to handle them efficiently. Which would disqualify them as
widely
used weapons.
Tron Furu
alex milman skrev i meldingen <9beoan$7le$1...@news.gte.com>...
>
>"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9begp7$hns$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>>
>
>> Silver gives a 'table' of what can beat what, but in my practical
>> experience any two men will beat a single man, by the simple expedient
of one defending against him and the other going round the back.
That is not a problem of choice of weapons, but of tactics. There are
tactics for working one-on-two ("Don't turn your back on the second one",
for instance...) . Thus, I am convinced that what is meant is that given the
proper tactics, the staff is at least equal to the sword in effectiveness.
>In purely practical terms, if quarterstaffs or clubs had any definite
>advantage over the swords, why weren't they widely adopted as the "primary"
weapons?
Again a question of circumstance. Battlefield weapons are generally long
range weapons. But not all fighting is on the battlefield. A 6 foot staff is
rather useless for short range work (and can therefore not be the ONLY
weapon unless you can guarantee that you will always win with it), and a
club makes no elegant accessory to evening dress.
They had been much cheaper.
- Swords are, for one thing, much harder to learn to wield effectively. To
be a good swordsman requires much more skill. As in the air force, the cost
of maintaining a staff of pilots is higher than the cost of buying planes.
That is, one has to consider the cost of the fighter, not the weapon. In
medieval times, a good sword fighter was worth ... a knight's fief?
I strongly suspect that these wooden weapons _could_ give some
>advantages if they had been very long and heavy.
- Not quite; rather, totally opposite. The effectiveness of a strike is a
function of speed, not weight, hence, the lightest (i.e. thinnest) possible
weapon not tending to break is the best, unless you desire to stamp-mould
your opponent (which, again, like sticking a sword in to the hilt, doesn't
make your opponent any deader than just killing him). Of course, there is a
certain point where lack of weight cancels out speed (particles of light,
for instance...), but most materials with the rigidity required to even make
a weapon six feet long do not fall under that kind of class.
Which means that only very strong men would be able to handle them
efficiently.
- No. Weapons are not moved by the biceps alone, there is no progression
from "one ounce blade/one ounce muscle" to "five pound weapon/ five pound
muscle". The heavier the weapon, the more you must use more of the muscles
of your body to work it with ease. A knife/epee can be shifted with just the
hands, a cutting blade must be shifted with the whole arm, a longer weapon
must be shifted using footwork, changes of position and line.
At the same time, heft is not only a function of balance; or, rather,
balance is a function of the way the weapon is used. If you hold a staff by
the end, swinging it around with that end as the axis, this will give you a
different heft than if you work with the midpoint, as would be natural with
a quarterstaff.
>Which would disqualify them as widely used weapons.
What disqualifies the staff is that it is not very versatile - it is a
"niche" kind of weapon. Like the horn of the rhino, it is effective for the
intents and purposes of such a horn. Shorter bladed weapons are more like
the "human hand", not terribly effective in a horn-on charge against another
rhino (well, it is, for that other rhino), but more versatile, and
_potentially_ deadly, given the right circumstances (as the different swords
require, too).
Another aspect of the niche is that a staff is generally the weapon of the
man not permitted to carry a "real weapon". A staff with a knife at the
end - i.e., a spear - is more effective than just the staff, and given the
opportunity, the battlefield weapons where made bladed; as with the
Spartans, Medieval Knights and others, it was even the primary battlefield
weapon.
So the staff pure and simple is ONLY a weapon, something you take to war,
and worse, not yet a fully developed weapon; and where the staff was common,
like in Japan or in England, AFAIK you find considerations on propriety as
well as on effectiveness.
Tron Furu
>
alex milman
"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:BiCC6.7986$R6.1...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
>
> alex milman skrev i meldingen <9beoan$7le$1...@news.gte.com>...
> >
> >"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9begp7$hns$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> >>
> >
> >> Silver gives a 'table' of what can beat what, but in my practical
> >> experience any two men will beat a single man, by the simple expedient
> of one defending against him and the other going round the back.
>
> That is not a problem of choice of weapons, but of tactics. There are
> tactics for working one-on-two ("Don't turn your back on the second one",
> for instance...) . Thus, I am convinced that what is meant is that given
the
> proper tactics, the staff is at least equal to the sword in effectiveness.
>
> >In purely practical terms, if quarterstaffs or clubs had any definite
> >advantage over the swords, why weren't they widely adopted as the
"primary"
> weapons?
>
> Again a question of circumstance. Battlefield weapons are generally long
> range weapons.
> But not all fighting is on the battlefield.
True, but if these weapons could give "2:1" advantage, we'd see them on the
battlefields.
But instead we see pikes (often well over 9' long) and numerous
modifications of the halberds.
>A 6 foot staff is
> rather useless for short range work (and can therefore not be the ONLY
> weapon unless you can guarantee that you will always win with it), and a
> club makes no elegant accessory to evening dress.
This is all true but harldy the point. If it was a useful weapon, we'd see
it in one capacity or another.
For example, the battle clubs ("oslops") had been used in Medieval Russia,
mostly as a _cheap_
weapon. People with the money would arm themselves and their followers with
the sabres, pikes,
bows, etc.
>
>
> They had been much cheaper.
> - Swords are, for one thing, much harder to learn to wield effectively.
Probably to be ready to fight with the club against the sword you have to be
_very_ efficient
with this weapon.
>To
> be a good swordsman requires much more skill.
Agree. This is why "post-Swisss" european infantry used long pikes as a
primary weapon.
But not the (long or short) clubs.
> As in the air force, the cost
> of maintaining a staff of pilots is higher than the cost of buying planes.
> That is, one has to consider the cost of the fighter, not the weapon. In
> medieval times, a good sword fighter was worth ... a knight's fief?
What about a good club fighter?
>
> I strongly suspect that these wooden weapons _could_ give some
> >advantages if they had been very long and heavy.
> - Not quite; rather, totally opposite.
Are you saying that to be efficient a wooden weapon has to be short and
light?
(as opposite to being long and heavy).
>The effectiveness of a strike is a
> function of speed, not weight, hence, the lightest (i.e. thinnest)
possible
> weapon not tending to break is the best,
Unfortunately, not to break in the most interesting moment this thinnest
weapon
has to be reasonably thick. It also has to be thick enough not to be be
broken
by the opponent's sword (as can be seen in "The Red Sun" when Charles
Bronson
is trying to use a young tree against Toshiro Mithune armed with a sword).
Plus, with the thin wooden weapon you are talking fencing vs brute force.
Which means
really high-quality master. Which means even less common requirement than a
simply
strong man. And high-quality master would prefer a metallic weapon (unless
he is playing
in the Japanese or Hong-Kong movies).
>
> Which means that only very strong men would be able to handle them
> efficiently.
> - No. Weapons are not moved by the biceps alone,
It depends on the type of a weapon.
>there is no progression
> from "one ounce blade/one ounce muscle" to "five pound weapon/ five pound
> muscle".
You are not talking about the blades but about the clubs. Skill is important
with them
but you have to be strong enough to use them.
>
> >Which would disqualify them as widely used weapons.
> What disqualifies the staff is that it is not very versatile - it is a
> "niche" kind of weapon. Like the horn of the rhino, it is effective for
the
> intents and purposes of such a horn. Shorter bladed weapons are more like
> the "human hand", not terribly effective in a horn-on charge against
another
> rhino (well, it is, for that other rhino), but more versatile, and
> _potentially_ deadly, given the right circumstances (as the different
swords
> require, too).
> Another aspect of the niche is that a staff is generally the weapon of the
> man not permitted to carry a "real weapon".
Or a movie/book hero... :-)
>A staff with a knife at the
> end - i.e., a spear - is more effective than just the staff, and given the
> opportunity, the battlefield weapons where made bladed; as with the
> Spartans, Medieval Knights and others, it was even the primary battlefield
> weapon.
But a spear was not a "staff".
> So the staff pure and simple is ONLY a weapon, something you take to war,
> and worse, not yet a fully developed weapon; and where the staff was
common,
> like in Japan
Judging by the Japanese movies, their "staffs" were not really clubs but
rather spears
made out of bamboo with the end cut in such a way that spear had a sharp
end. Should be
efficient against unarmoured opponent (which was common in Japan).
>or in England,
Did they use the same type of the wooden spears as Japanese? Usually,
British revolting
peasants are shown on the contemporary paintings with the more conventional
weapons.
Of course, "Robin Hood, man in tights" provides rather contradicting
information ("merry
men" are armed with the staffs) and, as far as authentity is going, I'd take
Mel Brooks over
any medieval sources (which are patently unreliable anyway). :-)
The usual arrangement for the "peasant" weapons in Europe included the clubs
(in Russia
they had been widely used even in XVI), the axes and modified agricultural
implements. For
example, scythe with the blade set vertically (had been used even in the
late XVIII by some of
the Koszuchko's troops). Never heard about the long staffs being widely used
(which does not
mean that they had not been used) for the military purposes even during the
peasant revolts.
William Black
alex milman <am...@gte.com> wrote in message
news:9beoan$7le$1...@news.gte.com...
>
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9begp7$hns$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> >
>
> > Silver gives a 'table' of what can beat what, but in my practical
> > experience any two men will beat a single man, by the simple expedient
of
> > one defending against him and the other going round the back.
>
> A maneuver, which is definitely beyond the mental capacities of the
> movie-villans. :-)
Well you'd need Alan Rickman or Anthony Sher at least.
> In purely practical terms, if quarterstaffs or clubs had any definite
> advantage over the
> swords, why weren't they widely adopted as the "primary" weapons? They had
> been
> much cheaper.
Looking at Swetnam they seem to have been, especially if you're on foot.
I strongly suspect that these wooden weapons _could_ give some
> advantages if they had been very long and heavy. Which means that only
very
> strong
> men would be able to handle them efficiently. Which would disqualify them
as
> widely
> used weapons.
Well seeing as a staff is 24' long and a half staff 12' then a quarterstaff
will be 6' long, Swetnam says it should be useable as a walking staff so it
shouldn't be too heavy. The problem with fighting with them today is that,
unlike blunted swords, they are quite as dangerous as their prototypes.
William Black
> >
> >"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9begp7$hns$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> Again a question of circumstance. Battlefield weapons are generally long
> range weapons. But not all fighting is on the battlefield. A 6 foot staff
is
> rather useless for short range work (and can therefore not be the ONLY
> weapon unless you can guarantee that you will always win with it), and a
> club makes no elegant accessory to evening dress.
>
Neither swords nor quarterstaffs were ever battlefield primary weapons.
Both are civil weapons of self defence rather than military tools.
Tron Furu
alex milman skrev i meldingen <9bfaas$9a9$1...@news.gte.com>...
>True, but if these weapons could give "2:1" advantage, we'd see them on the
>battlefields.
>But instead we see pikes (often well over 9' long) and numerous
>modifications of the halberds.
The 2:1 advantage seemed to obtain in a duel situation. I think that it
would not be unreasonable to analyze any weapons efficiency _also_ in terms
of extraneous factors such as these (Type of fight, opponents'
armaments...); hence, no weapon would have any "intrinsic" advantage.
I would also believe that an opponents unfamiliarity with your own weapon
would be an advantage, and this could also have obtained in the duel
mentioned.
>This is all true but harldy the point. If it was a useful weapon, we'd see
>it in one capacity or another.
The 6 foot staff (the rokushaku bo) was part of the curriculum of military
infantry in Japan. It was probably conceived from fighting with a broken
spear shaft; these techniques are more reminiscent of sword type movements
than other japanese staff techniques.
>For example, the battle clubs ("oslops") had been used in Medieval Russia,
>mostly as a _cheap_ weapon. People with the money would arm themselves and
their followers with the sabres, pikes, bows, etc.
I'm sure economy was a factor.
>Probably to be ready to fight with the club against the sword you have to
be
>_very_ efficient with this weapon.
Well... first of all the short answer. "Not necessarily".
What is "the" sword ...?
It is also depending on the skill of the swordsman. Maybe not every third
cousin armed by a rich uncle for the occasion of a skirmish could attain
skill in the period between being eqippped and going to battle.
I would like to compare club/sword to the difference between western boxing
(in the role of "clubbing") and any more extensive unarmed martial art, like
wrestling. Boxing has a limited repertoire of techniques; the difference is
in the skill and _energy_ of application. "Hit with the right and/or the
left hand, try to avoid getting hit yourself, and good luck." (Very short
version, apologies to aficionados.)
Club vs. sword seems to be a case of lottery, hit-and-win, miss-and-lose,
with the opportunity to strike being the paramount factor in success; there
is no "engagement of weapons". A fencer attacked with a sword has more
options for defence and counterattack.
A propos clubs, there is always the japanese iron staff (I believe it was
called a tetsubo). This weapon had only one technique: Lift, and lower
(quickly...). The use was never very widespread and did require great bodily
strength. But it was also formidable.
>That is, one has to consider the cost of the fighter, not the weapon. In
medieval times, a good sword fighter was worth ... a knight's fief?
>
>What about a good club fighter?
Any good sword fighter, by dint of his skill in timing, positioning etc.
would also be a good club fighter.
But the whole point of the argument goes to the economy question. Swords
require skill, skill requires practice, practice requires time, time
requires leisure, leisure requires someone else to work on your behalf. The
education of any corps of sword fighters would be expensive, much more
expensive than the swords themselves.
>Are you saying that to be efficient a wooden weapon has to be short and
>light? >(as opposite to being long and heavy).
- No, it should be as long as necessary (superior reach) and as light,
hence as thin, as possible. "Possible" here of course includes a sufficient
strength to avoid breakage. As heavy as possible weapons would go way beyond
that necessary minimum.
There are, of course, also techniques for fighting with shorter wooden
weapons, down to knife length, in fact (AFAIK: 6, 4, 3,1, and 1/2 foot
lengths).
>Unfortunately, not to break in the most interesting moment this thinnest
>weapon >has to be reasonably thick.
Of course. But "reasonably" is no absolute measure. See above.
>It also has to be thick enough not to be be broken by the opponent's sword
(as can be seen in "The Red Sun" when Charles Bronson is trying to use a
young tree against Toshiro Mithune armed with a sword).
Well, many things can be seen in movies. As sources go, they are not all
that reliable, although mr. Mifune did train as a swordsman.
There are _lots_ of qualifications to your statement.
- A thin young tree will be cut, a thicker young one might trap the blade.
- A thin young tree might break, a thicker young one might not.
- Thin but seasoned wood is harder to cut and/or break.
>Plus, with the thin wooden weapon you are talking fencing vs brute force.
1. No, as "force" is squared by double speed and only doubled by double
weight, thinness (= more speed) = force.
2. Fencing, I assume, we are also talking when we discuss the quarterstaff.
It didn't fight by itself, no matter how thick.
>Which means really high-quality master.
You do like to generalize, it seems. Skill, imho, comes in all gradations.
> Which means even less common requirement than a simply strong man.
A strong man can also happen to be an incredibly inept staff fencer.
And high-quality master would prefer a metallic weapon (unless he is playing
in the Japanese or Hong-Kong movies).
A high quality master would probably know any number of weapons, and prefer
not to fight...
>You are not talking about the blades but about the clubs. Skill is
important
>with them but you have to be strong enough to use them.
Quite, but let me restate it: The increase in strength does not come from,
and hence does not require, an increase in arm musculature. The increase in
strength comes from the use of more and more, and bigger and bigger, muscle
groups. Naginata (halberd) play was considered a useful pasttime for
japanese ladies, remember.
>But a spear was not a "staff".
Yes and no.
Yes: Technically, a spear is any long piece of handle (e.g., a staff of
wood) with one or both ends prepared so as to enable stabbing and/or
cutting, in the first case possibly by sharpening, in the latter case a
blade is required.
A spear, therefore, is a staff (giving the benefits of reach) + point/edge,
giving the benefit of penetration.
No: Spear/lance and staff techniques, and countertechniques against them,
are distinctly different. Spear techniques are generally limited to the
stabbing techniques also used with a staff, but _may_ also include other
techniques.
>Judging by the Japanese movies,
You should stop doing that. There are books, as well, and generally moe
comprehensive and reliable. Do you have any practical experience in any of
this?
>their "staffs" were not really clubs but rather spears made out of bamboo
with the end cut in such a way that spear had a sharp end.
No, these were the so called "bamboo spears". A japanese staff, be it a jo
or a bo, is made from wood, e.g. white oak, a very hard, strong and flexible
wood.
Regards,
Tron Furu
Tron Furu
William Black skrev i meldingen <9bfhb2$evu$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>...
>
>Tron Furu <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
>news:BiCC6.7986$R6.1...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
>>
>> alex milman skrev i meldingen <9beoan$7le$1...@news.gte.com>...
>> >
>> >"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:9begp7$hns$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>
>> Again a question of circumstance. Battlefield weapons are generally long
>> range weapons. But not all fighting is on the battlefield. A 6 foot staff
>is
>> rather useless for short range work (and can therefore not be the ONLY
>> weapon unless you can guarantee that you will always win with it), and a
>> club makes no elegant accessory to evening dress.
>>
>Neither swords nor quarterstaffs were ever battlefield primary weapons.
No, but although the primary weapons were the bow and the lance, the 6 foot
staff (the rokushaku bo) was still part of the curriculum of military
infantry in Japan.
Of course, a bo is not a quarterstaff.
>
>Both are civil weapons of self defence rather than military tools.
In the middle ages? Or generally, that is, earlier, too? Personally, I
believe that statement can be qualified.
Is there a strict equivalence between "battlefield primary weapons" and
"military tools" ?
Regards,
Tron Furu
Kel Rekuta
The anecdote concerned an English prisoner (Richard Peeke)
in Spanish hands in 1625. After defeating a single opponent,
Peeke cheekily agreed to meet three opponents for the
amusement of the Spanish officers, provided he was permitted
a staff instead of sword. Bear in mind, this is quarter
staff and not the half staff technique seen in Hollywood
movies. In short order, one Spaniard was dead. The others
were injured and disarmed.
Having had the pleasure of instruction by Mr Brown one
recent afternoon, I can say that he knows of what he speaks
in a very real combat environment. I cannot judge his
scholarship outside the scope of his book. His book,
"English Martial Arts" has simply presented historical
anecdotes including the one mentioned earlier.
The majority of the blade work is beyond my experience, and
indeed, my interest.
The class undertook to experiment with quarter staves. My
attempt was against two opponents armed with two handed
swords. It took a great deal of effort to restrain the force
a quarter staff can produce.
I have no doubt that a properly trained man armed with a
quarter staff could kill or at least severely injure two or
even three opponents armed with rapiers. I had no trouble
with two men armed with long swords. It was a frightening
experience for me. I had a very high opinion of two handed
swordsmanship prior to this demonstration. My opinion has
since been adjusted.
A combat between a man armed with quarter staff and a man of
equal experience armed with *any* type of sword would be
brief. The staff man would thump the swordsman to his knees
with several hard jabs and swats. The swordsman, being on
the defensive from the start, would have a very bad time of
it. Heavy plate armour would simply prolong the agony as the
staff man could repeatedly trip and throw his opponent.
It really would not be a pretty fight. ;-{
YMMV,
Kel
Kel Rekuta
Wow! You really should visit the Wallace Collection if you
think swords weren't primary battlefield weapons! Or maybe
read a book about medieval armour and weapons, say Oakeshott
or Edge and Paddock.
Quarter staffs were not primary battlefield weapons because
there are so many more efficient ways to murder and maim an
armoured opponent.
However, staves or poleaxes can be quite effective at close
range when used at "half staff". Watch the poleaxe fight in
Richard III. (Basil Rathbone, Vincent Price, et al.) It was
well choreographed with several moves right out of "Jeu de
la Hache". Distance and timing are just elements in a
fight.
I'll agree *too close* is a problem with fifteen foot pikes.
;-}
Kel
alex milman
>
> alex milman skrev i meldingen <9bfaas$9a9$1...@news.gte.com>...
>
> >True, but if these weapons could give "2:1" advantage, we'd see them on
the
> >battlefields.
> >But instead we see pikes (often well over 9' long) and numerous
> >modifications of the halberds.
>
> The 2:1 advantage seemed to obtain in a duel situation.
I'd call it an individual fighting. IMHO, "duel" implies certain rules and
restrictions like similar weapons and 1:1 fighting (of course, there had
been
multiple exceptions).
>I think that it
> would not be unreasonable to analyze any weapons efficiency _also_ in
terms
> of extraneous factors such as these (Type of fight, opponents'
> armaments...); hence, no weapon would have any "intrinsic" advantage.
Well, IIRC, one of the "Indiana Jones ...." movies clearly demonstrated an
intrincing advantage of a revolver over a sword. :-)
But, of course, in the individual fighting a lot depends on the individual
qualities
of the participants and I can easily imagine a situation when a very strong
and
skilled man armed with a heavy wooden stick over 6' long had an advantage
over
two or 3 opponents armed with the much shorter rapiers (providing they did
not
have time or opportunity to encircle him).
> I would also believe that an opponents unfamiliarity with your own weapon
> would be an advantage, and this could also have obtained in the duel
> mentioned.
>
Quite possible. It's also possible that event never really happened or
happened
in a different way (e.g., a number of the opponents and their weapons had
been
exaggerated by the teller of the story).
> >This is all true but harldy the point. If it was a useful weapon, we'd
see
> >it in one capacity or another.
>
> The 6 foot staff (the rokushaku bo) was part of the curriculum of military
> infantry in Japan. It was probably conceived from fighting with a broken
> spear shaft; these techniques are more reminiscent of sword type movements
> than other japanese staff techniques.
Can't comment on this because my knowledge on the subject is limited to the
Japanese movies (preferably with Toshiro Mithune). :-)
Judging by these impeccable sources (:-) ) Japanese fencing with the spears
was reminescent to the sword fencing: blade had been used both for piercing
and
cutting. Did you see a duel in "Three Scoundrels in the Hidden Fortress"?
As soon as one of the participants had his spear broken, he acknowledged his
defeat (maybe was not trained properly with that roku<whatever> :-) ).
BTW, AFAIK, Japanese had been widely using the wooden swords for the
training purposes
so that these wooden spears also could be purely training weapons.
>
> >For example, the battle clubs ("oslops") had been used in Medieval
Russia,
> >mostly as a _cheap_ weapon. People with the money would arm themselves
and
> their followers with the sabres, pikes, bows, etc.
>
> I'm sure economy was a factor.
It also implies that contemporaries considered these more expensive weapons
as having
some "intrincing" advantage.
>
> >Probably to be ready to fight with the club against the sword you have to
> be
> >_very_ efficient with this weapon.
>
> Well... first of all the short answer. "Not necessarily".
> What is "the" sword ...?
It could be a huge two-hand weapon or a shorter version with a blade 3 - 4
feet.
> It is also depending on the skill of the swordsman.
Which is exactly my point. Skills of both participants had been important
and, if you
are going to use a stick against the sword, you have to be a better master
with your
weapon than your opponent with his sword.
> Maybe not every third
> cousin armed by a rich uncle for the occasion of a skirmish could attain
> skill in the period between being eqippped and going to battle.
>
Clubs being the weapon of the poor, their bearers (on average) should not
have
any skill advantage over the people who had been taught to fight with the
swords
(professional soldiers or the memeber of a nobility, who usually passed
trough some
formal training).
> I would like to compare club/sword to the difference between western
boxing
> (in the role of "clubbing") and any more extensive unarmed martial art,
like
> wrestling. Boxing has a limited repertoire of techniques; the difference
is
> in the skill and _energy_ of application.
Your example is not applicable by any stretch of imagination and you are
switching
from one aspect to another. On average (which means areas of a _mass_
deployment,
where both sides had approximately the same skills and physical abilities),
the wooden
weapons definitely had been at disadvantage over the metallic ones (unless
all history
of warfare is one big misunderstanding). In the individual fighting the
privilieged classes
always tended to arm themselves with the best weapons. Which happened to be
swords,
rapiers, sabres, etc. but not the clubs.
>
> A propos clubs, there is always the japanese iron staff (I believe it was
> called a tetsubo). This weapon had only one technique: Lift, and lower
> (quickly...).
Which would make it equal to the mace.
> The use was never very widespread and did require great bodily
> strength. But it was also formidable.
The same goes for the maces and battleaxes. You had to be very strong AND
skillful to use them efficiently.
>
>
> >That is, one has to consider the cost of the fighter, not the weapon. In
> medieval times, a good sword fighter was worth ... a knight's fief?
> >
> >What about a good club fighter?
> Any good sword fighter, by dint of his skill in timing, positioning etc.
> would also be a good club fighter.
>
> But the whole point of the argument goes to the economy question. Swords
> require skill, skill requires practice, practice requires time, time
> requires leisure, leisure requires someone else to work on your behalf.
The
> education of any corps of sword fighters would be expensive, much more
> expensive than the swords themselves.
Yes. Regardless this obstacle, you can see the contingents of the sword
fighters
at any epoche starting from the Ancient Egypt (and maybe earlier). Never
heard
about an army of the club fighters.
>
> >Are you saying that to be efficient a wooden weapon has to be short and
> >light? >(as opposite to being long and heavy).
>
> - No, it should be as long as necessary (superior reach) and as light,
> hence as thin, as possible. "Possible" here of course includes a
sufficient
> strength to avoid breakage.
Which would be rather thick, especially if you are going to use it against
the
people wearing a protective armour and armed with the swords.
> As heavy as possible weapons would go way beyond
> that necessary minimum.
> There are, of course, also techniques for fighting with shorter wooden
> weapons, down to knife length, in fact (AFAIK: 6, 4, 3,1, and 1/2 foot
> lengths).
Sure. I just wonder why (AFAIK) Japanese samurays and soldiers had been
using
(in real life) the swords, pikes and bows and not the fancy equipment, which
is so
popular in the "easterns"? :-)
>
> >Unfortunately, not to break in the most interesting moment this thinnest
> >weapon >has to be reasonably thick.
> Of course. But "reasonably" is no absolute measure. See above.
>
> >It also has to be thick enough not to be be broken by the opponent's
sword
> (as can be seen in "The Red Sun" when Charles Bronson is trying to use a
> young tree against Toshiro Mithune armed with a sword).
>
> Well, many things can be seen in movies.
I know. But the point is that a good-quality sword can make a deep cut in a
wooden
staff or even cut through it.
(No, I don't think that Mithune's killing mosquito with his sword was
necessarily realistic :-) )
The duel rapier vs staff you referenced to brings anothe dimension into the
picture.
At least some versions of it had been strictly piercing weapons without a
cutting edge.
Which means, they could do very little damage to the staff. But by the time
they became
widely used, nobility was routinely fighting only their equals and an issue
of the "best weapon"
was more or less mute.
>As sources go, they are not all
> that reliable, although mr. Mifune did train as a swordsman.
> There are _lots_ of qualifications to your statement.
> - A thin young tree will be cut, a thicker young one might trap the blade.
> - A thin young tree might break, a thicker young one might not.
> - Thin but seasoned wood is harder to cut and/or break.
Definitely.
Speaking about the movies (just want to be fair), you can see a spectacular
example of victorious usage of a (long and heavy) stick against the sword in
"Alexander Nevsky". I don't want to make _any_ comments about the authentity
of anything related to this movies (beyond few names and the fact that
battle happened).
>
> >Plus, with the thin wooden weapon you are talking fencing vs brute force.
> 1. No, as "force" is squared by double speed and only doubled by double
> weight, thinness (= more speed) = force.
Are you talking about m*v**2/2?
The problem with application of this formula is that, unless the
staff-wielder
is very experienced, there are very few ways (IMHO) to achieve a high
speed without exposing yourself during the attack. You had to be better
with your hitting only club than your opponent with his cutting + piercing
weapon.
BTW, thinness does not automatically equals to a higher speed. At least not
in
a direct proportion.
> 2. Fencing, I assume, we are also talking when we discuss the
quarterstaff.
> It didn't fight by itself, no matter how thick.
>
> >Which means really high-quality master.
> You do like to generalize, it seems. Skill, imho, comes in all
gradations.
Yes. But it goes on both sides. Sword also needs somebody on a hilt side.
So when I'm talking about a "skilled" master, I'm talking about the skill
comparing to the opponent's skill. What you are talking about (or at least
it
looks like that) is a very skilled person with the staff against the person
with
the average or below average sword fencing skills.
>
> >You are not talking about the blades but about the clubs. Skill is
> important
> >with them but you have to be strong enough to use them.
>
> Quite, but let me restate it: The increase in strength does not come from,
> and hence does not require, an increase in arm musculature.
Did I say a single word about the musculature?
>The increase in
> strength comes from the use of more and more, and bigger and bigger,
muscle
> groups. Naginata (halberd) play was considered a useful pasttime for
> japanese ladies, remember.
Well, these ladies never had been present in any noticeable numbers on the
battlefields and we have no clue how strong had been those few exceptions
who had been fighting in the real life.
>
> >But a spear was not a "staff".
> Yes and no.
> Yes: Technically, a spear is any long piece of handle
First objection. It does not have to be long (did you see Zulu's assagay?).
> (e.g., a staff of
> wood) with one or both ends prepared so as to enable stabbing and/or
> cutting, in the first case possibly by sharpening, in the latter case a
> blade is required.
> A spear, therefore, is a staff (giving the benefits of reach) +
point/edge,
> giving the benefit of penetration.
An interesting interpretation.
According to it, sword is also a staff: a (more or less) long piece of iron
(AFAIK, definition of
"staff" does not tell us how long it should be or what it should be made of)
with one end preparing
for stabbing and/or cutting, etc. :-)
>
> No: Spear/lance and staff techniques, and countertechniques against them,
> are distinctly different. Spear techniques are generally limited to the
> stabbing techniques also used with a staff, but _may_ also include other
> techniques.
>
> >Judging by the Japanese movies,
> You should stop doing that.
Why should I, you brought Japanese into the picture and I'm using whatever
weapons I have.
> There are books, as well, and generally moe
> comprehensive and reliable.
Well, when I'm referencing to these movies, I'm referencing not to the
"easterns"
but to Kurosava. And he was very thorough in what he was doing and showing.
>Do you have any practical experience in any of
> this?
Of course not. Do I make an impression of a sado-masohistic maniac? (no
offense) :-)
>
> >their "staffs" were not really clubs but rather spears made out of bamboo
> with the end cut in such a way that spear had a sharp end.
> No, these were the so called "bamboo spears". A japanese staff, be it a jo
> or a bo, is made from wood, e.g. white oak, a very hard, strong and
flexible
> wood.
Thanks for the information. But, judging by the paintings (hopefully they
are authentic
enough for you) all these exciting pieces of wood never made it into the
battlefield.
They also never had been a weapon of choice of the military class. Which
probably
indicates that swords had some definite advantage.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tron Furu
>
>
>
alex milman
>
> Neither swords nor quarterstaffs were ever battlefield primary weapons.
Tell this to the Ancient Romans. :-)
>
> Both are civil weapons of self defence rather than military tools.
Can you be more specific about the time frame you are referencing to?
alex milman
"Kel Rekuta" <kre...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ADB8CD5...@sympatico.ca...
> A combat between a man armed with quarter staff and a man of
> equal experience armed with *any* type of sword would be
> brief. The staff man would thump the swordsman to his knees
> with several hard jabs and swats. The swordsman, being on
> the defensive from the start, would have a very bad time of
> it. Heavy plate armour would simply prolong the agony as the
> staff man could repeatedly trip and throw his opponent.
>
> It really would not be a pretty fight. ;-{
Well, 1st it had been proved on shm that English bows have a tremendous
advantage
over the firearms. Now we know that English piece of wood has a tremendows
advantage over the iron weapons. Which brings a rather obvious question why
Brits
bothered with building all these ironworks? It's probably safe to assume
that these
miracles had been limited only to the certain parts of England and to the
Japanese-run
schools of the martial arts: the rest of the mankind (including most of
England and Japan) was
stupid enough to spend enormous efforts and money to produce first bronze
and than iron weapons.
It's also quite obvious that the numerous peasant revolts had been crushed
simply because these
peasants had been too stupid to use staffs and clubs: they would defeat
their armoured opponents at no
time. The only unresolved question is how Yukatan Indians did not kill all
Spaniards at the 1st encounter:
they definitely had clubs vs swords. Perhaps they had been too stupid to
make their wooden
weapons 6 feet long. :-)
Tron Furu
alex milman wrote:
>
> >
> > The 2:1 advantage seemed to obtain in a duel situation.
>
> I'd call it an individual fighting. IMHO, "duel" implies certain rules and
> restrictions like similar weapons and 1:1 fighting .
I meant as opposed to a battlefield situation.
>
> Well, IIRC, one of the "Indiana Jones ...." movies clearly demonstrated an
> intrincing advantage of a revolver over a sword. :-)
Well, IIRC, in the next Indiana Jones movie he tried the same with an empty gun.
He had spent all six intrinsic advantages, and had to make a run for it....
I believe it took a considerable time from the introduction of firearms to their
exclusice presence on the battlefield.
> Quite possible. It's also possible that event never really happened or
> happened
> in a different way (e.g., a number of the opponents and their weapons had
> been
> exaggerated by the teller of the story).
On that line, there could have been 562 opponents, and a very modest
storyteller...
> Can't comment on this because my knowledge on the subject is limited to the
> Japanese movies (preferably with Toshiro Mithune). :-)
Good stuff. He directed one himself, called "Gold", which I have never been able
to get hold of. And there is another fabulous MA film called "Harakiri", not
directed by AK (can't remember the name of the director), but very good.
>
> Did you see a duel in "Three Scoundrels in the Hidden Fortress"?
Long, looong time ago.
>
> BTW, AFAIK, Japanese had been widely using the wooden swords for the
> training purposes so that these wooden spears also could be purely training
> weapons.
No, a staff IS a wooden weapon (but of course the training version is, too.....)
> It also implies that contemporaries considered these more expensive weapons
> as having some "intrincing" advantage.
True. But what IS the intrinsic advantage of the sword?
> > It is also depending on the skill of the swordsman.
>
> Which is exactly my point. Skills of both participants had been important
> and, if you are going to use a stick against the sword, you have to be a
> better master
> with your weapon than your opponent with his sword.
That argument goes the other way around, too. It doesn't really speak to the
point of intrinsic advantage.
>
>
> > Maybe not every third
> > cousin armed by a rich uncle for the occasion of a skirmish could attain
> > skill in the period between being eqippped and going to battle.
> >
> Clubs being the weapon of the poor, their bearers (on average) should not
> have any skill advantage over the people who had been taught to fight with the
>
> swords (professional soldiers or the memeber of a nobility, who usually passed
>
> trough some formal training).
True, but
a) my argument rests on the premise that the cousin DIDN'T get training, and
hence can be restated as
b) your argument goes to skill, not to intrinsic advantage of swords. If there
is any, any man who is given a sword (and no training) should beat any man who
is given a club (and no training). Is that so?
> Your example
It is not an example, it is an analogy, a model, and as such of course will
break down at some point.
It does not break down immediately - the way I see it - when you consider what
it is supposed to model, and that is the relationship between technique and
force. If there are just so many ways to do things, the advantage lies in doing
them better, faster, more precisely, longer or any such quantitative measure. If
there are more ways to do things, an advantage can arise from doing "something
else".
A sword fighter has a larger repertoire of techniques than a club fighter,
owing, of course, to the qualities of the weapon, which permits slashing,
stabbing, hacking as well as "punching" (e.g. with the flat of the blade). The
nature of the repertoire requires skill and practice in manipulating the weapon,
not only skill in timing and distance (manipulating oneself, so to speak).
A club fighter has a smaller range of repertoire, but also a different one. If
the combat is in armor, a man with a mace may injure the opponent even through
the armor, and also immobilize the armor by hitting the joints.
The club itself does not require overly dextrous manipulation, but the
requirements to timing and positioning are equal - at least.
> > A propos clubs, there is always the japanese iron staff (I believe it was
> > called a tetsubo). This weapon had only one technique: Lift, and lower
> > (quickly...).
>
> Which would make it equal to the mace.
No, the tetsubo is much longer than a mace, it is an iron rod or staff, a two
handed weapon.
>
> The same goes for the maces and battleaxes. You had to be very strong AND
> skillful to use them efficiently.
Apart from the obviousness of this proposition, how do you know?
Never heard about an army of the club fighters.
Well, there were the mexicans... but this does not invalidate your argument, as
they probably would have preferred iron, had they known it.
> Which would be rather thick, especially if you are going to use it against
> the people wearing a protective armour and armed with the swords.
You are being a bit clever here; I am saying that the weight of a pole weapon
should not be maximized, and you reply that even thin it is pretty thick. Which
it is. My point is that it should not be as heavy as possible.
> Sure. I just wonder why (AFAIK) Japanese samurays and soldiers had been
> using (in real life) the swords, pikes and bows and not the fancy equipment,
> which
> is so popular in the "easterns"? :-)
Samurai used everything as a weapon, down to towels and chopsticks. There were
schools for fighting with practically everything.
But in battle, the advantage goes to the one with the reach. But, again, one is
not always in battle, and sometimes the weapon of choice is broken.
> > Well, many things can be seen in movies.
>
> I know. But the point is that a good-quality sword can make a deep cut in a
> wooden staff or even cut through it.
How do you know? Have you tried cutting at something which does not have any
solid support, i.e. can yield? Try hanging up a pencil or similar in a piece of
thread, and cut it with your largest kitchen knife, or any bladed instrument
(except power driven ones...) you might have handy. Then we can talk.
>
> (No, I don't think that Mithune's killing mosquito with his sword was
> necessarily realistic :-) )
His name, btw, is Mifune.
>
>
> The duel rapier vs staff you referenced to brings anothe dimension into the
> picture.
> At least some versions of it had been strictly piercing weapons without a
> cutting edge.
> Which means, they could do very little damage to the staff.
Well, in short/long weapons combat, the staff is generally not the target. The
task is to somehow pass by this long weapon, and hit the man. A rapier may wound
a man quite badly.
>
> Speaking about the movies (just want to be fair), you can see a spectacular
> example of victorious usage of a (long and heavy) stick against the sword in
> "Alexander Nevsky". I don't want to make _any_ comments about the authentity
> of anything related to this movies (beyond few names and the fact that
> battle happened).
Eisenstein? I have seen that once, too, again long ago. I was most fascinated
with the helmets of the german knights.....wonderfully operatic.
>
>
>
> Are you talking about m*v**2/2?
No idea when it comes to mathematical expressions.
>
> The problem with application of this formula is that, unless the
> staff-wielder is very experienced, there are very few ways (IMHO) to achieve a
> high
> speed without exposing yourself during the attack.
How do you know?
The whole point of having a staff is to be able to work outside the range of a
swordsman.
That is one way, and in fact the essence of tactics in this kind of combat.
>
> BTW, thinness does not automatically equals to a higher speed. At least not
> in a direct proportion.
No, but it makes for quicker acceleration, easier heft, less need for muscle.
> What you are talking about (or at least it looks like that) is a very skilled
> person with the staff against the person
> with the average or below average sword fencing skills.
Yes, I do, and this goes to the training time issue. For people without
training, a sword may not be the weapon of choice when there is no time for
preparation. In mass levies, the ordinary foot soldiers vere given spears, not
swords, as they can quikly become dangerous with a spear, where sword
proficiency requires more time.
I posit that there were much more differences in skill when it came to swords
then when it came to other weapons.
>
>
>
> Did I say a single word about the musculature?
Well, you say one has to be strong to wield a heavy weapon. There is truth in
that, but it can be specified. The way I specify it, such strength is available
to anyone, not just people of above avarage muscular strength.
> >
> > >But a spear was not a "staff".
> > Yes and no.
> > Yes: Technically, a spear is any long piece of handle
>
> First objection. It does not have to be long (did you see Zulu's assagay?).
So when is a spear a spear? It is not in the word. I could easily call an
assegai a particular form of sword, based on how it was used.
I am referring to the long lance.
> An interesting interpretation.
> According to it, sword is also a staff: a (more or less) long piece of iron
> (AFAIK, definition of
> "staff" does not tell us how long it should be or what it should be made of)
> with one end preparing
> for stabbing and/or cutting, etc. :-)
Well, there is the matter of how you can use it as well. You can do things with
swords that you can not do with a spear (like slash it around like a Hollywood
Mousquetaire), and based on that difference, I would exclude swords from being
classed as spears.
> > >Judging by the Japanese movies,
> > You should stop doing that.
>
> Why should I, you brought Japanese into the picture and I'm using whatever
> weapons I have.
I meant movies, you know...
>
>
> Well, when I'm referencing to these movies, I'm referencing not to the
> "easterns"
> but to Kurosava. And he was very thorough in what he was doing and showing.
The sword master Kyuzo in "7 Samurai" had never swung a sword before acting in
that movie....>
>
>
> Thanks for the information. But, judging by the paintings (hopefully they
> are authentic
> enough for you) all these exciting pieces of wood never made it into the
> battlefield.
Yes, as spear shafts...
>
> They also never had been a weapon of choice of the military class.
Not the primary, but sometimes secondary or tertiary.-
> Which probably indicates that swords had some definite advantage.
I do not really disagree, but what is that advantage? Not just "being a sword" ?
Regards,
Tron Furu
William Black
> William Black wrote:
> > >
> > Neither swords nor quarterstaffs were ever battlefield primary weapons.
> >
> > Both are civil weapons of self defence rather than military tools.
>
> think swords weren't primary battlefield weapons! Or maybe
> read a book about medieval armour and weapons, say Oakeshott
> or Edge and Paddock.
I've read Oakeshott, and lots of others, please give me an example of a
sword (not a two hander, but a single handed sword) being used by a soldier
as his primary weapon in a battle.
I'll give you a few starters you can't use:
Officers use their unit as their primary weapon
Romans used a heavy throwing spear
Various medieval cavalry types used a lance or a bow
They all carried swords, but they were secondary weapons for personal
defence, or, in the Roman case, used to finish off a disordered enemy
after they had been attacked and disorganised by the heavy throwing spear.
Afropea
>And there is another fabulous MA film called "Harakiri", not
>directed by AK (can't remember the name of the director), but very good.
"Harikari" is also known as "Seppuku" and was directed by Masaki Kibayashi.
It's based on a novel by Yasuhiko Takiguchi. The film came out in 1962. I
saw it years ago, and I highly recommend it.
Eve
William Black
>
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9bfhb2$evu$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> >
>
> > Neither swords nor quarterstaffs were ever battlefield primary weapons.
>
> Tell this to the Ancient Romans. :-)
I did, they said 'We use a heavy throwing spear as a primary weapon, then
we close with the sword and finish off our disorganised enemies...'
> >
> > Both are civil weapons of self defence rather than military tools.
>
> Can you be more specific about the time frame you are referencing to?
As personal weapons I imagine the travellers staff goes back an awful long
way and is still in use, I used one once against a dog which attacked the
dog I was walking. The sword as a personal civil sidearm certainly goes
back to the thirteenth century, there's a manual that old, and stops being
worn in the late eighteenth century.
However the duel is an early modern/renaissance phenomenon, starting in the
late fifteenth century and ending some time in the nineteenth.
alex milman
"Tron Furu" <tr...@episteme.no> wrote in message
news:3ADC67AD...@episteme.no...
>
>
> alex milman wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > The 2:1 advantage seemed to obtain in a duel situation.
> >
> > I'd call it an individual fighting. IMHO, "duel" implies certain rules
and
> > restrictions like similar weapons and 1:1 fighting .
>
> I meant as opposed to a battlefield situation.
>
> >
> > Well, IIRC, one of the "Indiana Jones ...." movies clearly demonstrated
an
> > intrincing advantage of a revolver over a sword. :-)
>
> Well, IIRC, in the next Indiana Jones movie he tried the same with an
empty gun.
>
> He had spent all six intrinsic advantages,
You see, a person armed with a six shooter can kill 6 opponents armed with
the
rapiers vs only two killed by a club. Which means that revolver has 6:1
advantage
over the rapier vs 2:1 club's advantage, which means it has 3:1 advantage
over the club. :-)
>and had to make a run for it....
This is why (long before Indiana appeared on the screen) Winston Churchill
figured
out that Mauser will have an intrincic advantage over the standard service
revolver.
Oterwise, well, history could go a completely different way after Ormandur.
:-)
> I believe it took a considerable time from the introduction of firearms to
their
> exclusice presence on the battlefield.
Yes. OTOH, by this time no army troops had been armed with the clubs (except
Indians).
>
> > Quite possible. It's also possible that event never really happened or
> > happened
> > in a different way (e.g., a number of the opponents and their weapons
had
> > been
> > exaggerated by the teller of the story).
>
> On that line, there could have been 562 opponents, and a very modest
> storyteller...
>
<splork.>
Modest storyteller?
> > Can't comment on this because my knowledge on the subject is limited to
the
> > Japanese movies (preferably with Toshiro Mithune). :-)
>
> Good stuff. He directed one himself, called "Gold",
I saw his (I think that he directed it) "Banners of the Samurays". Not very
impressive
in a directing sense but otherwise interesting.
>which I have never been able
> to get hold of. And there is another fabulous MA film called "Harakiri",
What it is about? Or what is the English title?
>not
> directed by AK (can't remember the name of the director), but very good.
>
> >
>
> > Did you see a duel in "Three Scoundrels in the Hidden Fortress"?
>
> Long, looong time ago.
>
> >
> > BTW, AFAIK, Japanese had been widely using the wooden swords for the
> > training purposes so that these wooden spears also could be purely
training
> > weapons.
>
> No, a staff IS a wooden weapon (but of course the training version is,
too.....)
>
> > It also implies that contemporaries considered these more expensive
weapons
> > as having some "intrincing" advantage.
>
> True. But what IS the intrinsic advantage of the sword?
I'm not a medieval soldier so how would I know?
> >
> >
> > > Maybe not every third
> > > cousin armed by a rich uncle for the occasion of a skirmish could
attain
> > > skill in the period between being eqippped and going to battle.
> > >
> > Clubs being the weapon of the poor, their bearers (on average) should
not
> > have any skill advantage over the people who had been taught to fight
with the
> >
> > swords (professional soldiers or the memeber of a nobility, who usually
passed
> >
> > trough some formal training).
>
> True, but
> a) my argument rests on the premise that the cousin DIDN'T get training,
and
> hence can be restated as
Ah, I see. In this situation club probably is a better weapon because even
with a minimal
expertise it can be dangerous due to it's weight/length.
> b) your argument goes to skill, not to intrinsic advantage of swords. If
there
> is any, any man who is given a sword (and no training) should beat any man
who
> is given a club (and no training). Is that so?
No, I don't think so. Actually, a man who does not know how to shoot the gun
is at
definite disadvantage against one with the club. IMHO, you should always
consider a human factor
behind the weapon. Which probably makes the whole subject of our discussion
senseless.
_Who_ with the staff vs _whom_ with the sword (and what type of a sword)? We
can only say
that, based on the existing evidience, people over the ages had been
developing the metallic
weapons. This does not mean that in each particular case, each particular
type of the weapon
will give a definite advantage over another.
[snip]
>
> > > A propos clubs, there is always the japanese iron staff (I believe it
was
> > > called a tetsubo). This weapon had only one technique: Lift, and lower
> > > (quickly...).
> >
> > Which would make it equal to the mace.
>
> No, the tetsubo is much longer than a mace, it is an iron rod or staff, a
two
> handed weapon.
I see. But Japanese also had the maces. Saw one in "The Black cats in
bamboo"
(did not see it in any other movie, probably was not very popular).
>
> >
> > The same goes for the maces and battleaxes. You had to be very strong
AND
> > skillful to use them efficiently.
>
> Apart from the obviousness of this proposition, how do you know?
Did you ever try to cut the wood with an axe? I did more than once and have
what you can call a "negative experience". :-)
>
> Never heard about an army of the club fighters.
>
> Well, there were the mexicans...
Yes......
>but this does not invalidate your argument, as
> they probably would have preferred iron, had they known it.
Judging by "The conquest of Mexico", they had been loosing as soon as
Spaniards
could get close enough to use their swords. Unless, of course, odds had een
too
good to loose.
>
> > Which would be rather thick, especially if you are going to use it
against
> > the people wearing a protective armour and armed with the swords.
>
> You are being a bit clever here; I am saying that the weight of a pole
weapon
> should not be maximized, and you reply that even thin it is pretty thick.
Which
> it is. My point is that it should not be as heavy as possible.
Let's say as heavy as comfortable. I definitely did not mean that it should
weight 40 - 50
pounds.
>
> > Sure. I just wonder why (AFAIK) Japanese samurays and soldiers had been
> > using (in real life) the swords, pikes and bows and not the fancy
equipment,
> > which
> > is so popular in the "easterns"? :-)
>
> Samurai used everything as a weapon, down to towels and chopsticks. There
were
> schools for fighting with practically everything.
I strongly suspect that here we have a real life vs theory. I have no doubts
that such
schools existed but how proficient was an average samuray is another story.
> But in battle, the advantage goes to the one with the reach. But, again,
one is
> not always in battle, and sometimes the weapon of choice is broken.
>
>
> > > Well, many things can be seen in movies.
> >
> > I know. But the point is that a good-quality sword can make a deep cut
in a
> > wooden staff or even cut through it.
>
> How do you know? Have you tried cutting at something which does not have
any
> solid support,
Actually, the club will have some support because it's owner should keep it
reasonably
strong. Otherwise, as a result of an impact, it can hit his head.
>i.e. can yield?
Yes. A piece of paper with a knife made of Zolingen steel. Surprisingly, it
was quite efficient.
>Try hanging up a pencil or similar in a piece of
> thread, and cut it with your largest kitchen knife,
The most obvious lesson will be: don't use kitchen knives made in Korea.
> >
> > (No, I don't think that Mithune's killing mosquito with his sword was
> > necessarily realistic :-) )
>
> His name, btw, is Mifune.
>
> >
> >
> > The duel rapier vs staff you referenced to brings anothe dimension into
the
> > picture.
> > At least some versions of it had been strictly piercing weapons without
a
> > cutting edge.
> > Which means, they could do very little damage to the staff.
>
> Well, in short/long weapons combat, the staff is generally not the target.
The
> task is to somehow pass by this long weapon, and hit the man. A rapier may
wound
> a man quite badly.
Yes, if you can get close enough. The main purpose of a longer weapon would
be
to keep an opponent far enough.
>
> >
> > Speaking about the movies (just want to be fair), you can see a
spectacular
> > example of victorious usage of a (long and heavy) stick against the
sword in
> > "Alexander Nevsky". I don't want to make _any_ comments about the
authentity
> > of anything related to this movies (beyond few names and the fact that
> > battle happened).
>
> Eisenstein? I have seen that once, too, again long ago. I was most
fascinated
> with the helmets of the german knights.....wonderfully operatic.
Yep.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you talking about m*v**2/2?
>
> No idea when it comes to mathematical expressions.
>
Well, you are talking about square of a speed. It should come from
somewhere....
> >
> > The problem with application of this formula is that, unless the
> > staff-wielder is very experienced, there are very few ways (IMHO) to
achieve a
> > high
> > speed without exposing yourself during the attack.
>
> How do you know?
You keep repeating the same question. How do you know that this is not the
case?
> The whole point of having a staff is to be able to work outside the range
of a
> swordsman.
Doing what exactly? And for how long?
> That is one way, and in fact the essence of tactics in this kind of
combat.
The question is not this rather obvious fact but the way of achieving this
goal.
> > What you are talking about (or at least it looks like that) is a very
skilled
> > person with the staff against the person
> > with the average or below average sword fencing skills.
>
> Yes, I do, and this goes to the training time issue. For people without
> training, a sword may not be the weapon of choice when there is no time
for
> preparation.
Yes. We both agree on this.
>In mass levies, the ordinary foot soldiers vere given spears,
In which countries?
>not
> swords, as they can quikly become dangerous with a spear, where sword
> proficiency requires more time.
> I posit that there were much more differences in skill when it came to
swords
> then when it came to other weapons.
Yes.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Did I say a single word about the musculature?
>
> Well, you say one has to be strong to wield a heavy weapon. There is truth
in
> that, but it can be specified. The way I specify it, such strength is
available
> to anyone, not just people of above avarage muscular strength.
This is fine with me but your definition implies even higher skills.
>
> > >
> > > >But a spear was not a "staff".
> > > Yes and no.
> > > Yes: Technically, a spear is any long piece of handle
> >
> > First objection. It does not have to be long (did you see Zulu's
assagay?).
>
> So when is a spear a spear?
Perhaps when it gets this piece of a metall on one end?
>It is not in the word. I could easily call an
> assegai a particular form of sword, based on how it was used.
Well, you can call it whatever you want but, AFAIK, it always had been
referenced to
as a spear.
> I am referring to the long lance.
How long should it be to satisfy you? :-)
On the XIV -XV century paintings you can find european (Italian) infantry
with the spears
that are 6' long at most. Some hunting spears also had been appr. of the
same length. Judging
by what I saw of Egyptian paintings, their spears almost definitely were
under 6'.
>
> > An interesting interpretation.
> > According to it, sword is also a staff: a (more or less) long piece of
iron
> > (AFAIK, definition of
> > "staff" does not tell us how long it should be or what it should be made
of)
> > with one end preparing
> > for stabbing and/or cutting, etc. :-)
>
> Well, there is the matter of how you can use it as well.
>You can do things with
> swords that you can not do with a spear
Yep. With some training you can use them for picking your teeth. Which is
much more
difficult, if not impossible, to do with a long lance.
> (like slash it around like a Hollywood
> Mousquetaire),
IIRC, these creatures (or at least some of them) already had piercing
rapiers, not
the cutting swords. So probably not too much in the area of a slashing. :-)
BTW, if you re-watch "Hidden fortress" (and not only), you'll see _cutting_
blade on a spear. Which probably makes it more "swordish" (in your
definition)
than a rapier.
>and based on that difference, I would exclude swords from being
> classed as spears.
Would not work. There were, at all times and in the different places, the
piercing
swords without a cutting edge (rapier, konchar, etc.)
>
> > > >Judging by the Japanese movies,
> > > You should stop doing that.
> >
> > Why should I, you brought Japanese into the picture and I'm using
whatever
> > weapons I have.
>
> I meant movies, you know...
>
I should stop watching them? Why? You probably noticed that I did not
mention
"A Lone Wolf ....." as a reference.
> >
> >
> > Well, when I'm referencing to these movies, I'm referencing not to the
> > "easterns"
> > but to Kurosava. And he was very thorough in what he was doing and
showing.
>
> The sword master Kyuzo in "7 Samurai" had never swung a sword before
acting in
> that movie....
Quite possible. Which does not mean that he did not learn the authentic
moves.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the information. But, judging by the paintings (hopefully
they
> > are authentic
> > enough for you) all these exciting pieces of wood never made it into the
> > battlefield.
>
> Yes, as spear shafts...
Spear shaft is not (usually) a weapon. Spear is.
>
> >
> > They also never had been a weapon of choice of the military class.
>
> Not the primary, but sometimes secondary or tertiary.-
>
> > Which probably indicates that swords had some definite advantage.
>
> I do not really disagree, but what is that advantage? Not just "being a
sword" ?
>
Well, it could work as following. Everybody _knew_ that sword has an
advantage
(had been taught in schools, told in the churches, etc.) and, based on this
knowledge,
they considered the people with the swords as having advantage. Consider
this a
psyhological warfare. :-)
David C. Pugh
Afropea
>to
>the
>> > Japanese movies (preferably with Toshiro Mithune). :-)
>>
>> Good stuff. He directed one himself, called "Gold",
>I saw his (I think that he directed it) "Banners of the Samurays". Not very
>impressive
>in a directing sense but otherwise interesting
Do you know what years these came out? The only one I'm familiar with under
his direction is 1962's "The Legacy of the Five Hundred Thousand".
Eve
erilar
<tron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
> No, but although the primary weapons were the bow and the lance, the 6
> foot
> staff (the rokushaku bo) was still part of the curriculum of military
> infantry in Japan.
> Of course, a bo is not a quarterstaff.
> >
You can use bo technique with a quarterstaff. . .
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
erilar
<tron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
> >But a spear was not a "staff".
> Yes and no.
> Yes: Technically, a spear is any long piece of handle (e.g., a staff of
> wood) with one or both ends prepared so as to enable stabbing and/or
> cutting, in the first case possibly by sharpening, in the latter case a
> blade is required.
> A spear, therefore, is a staff (giving the benefits of reach) +
> point/edge,
> giving the benefit of penetration.
A broom, mop, shovel, etc. can also be a useful weapon in the hands of
one who knows "staff" technique 8-) I cut off a broom to have a jo for
karate camp one summer...
William Black
>
> "Kel Rekuta" <kre...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3ADB8CD5...@sympatico.ca...
>
> > A combat between a man armed with quarter staff and a man of
> > equal experience armed with *any* type of sword would be
> > brief. The staff man would thump the swordsman to his knees
> > with several hard jabs and swats. The swordsman, being on
> > the defensive from the start, would have a very bad time of
> > it. Heavy plate armour would simply prolong the agony as the
> > staff man could repeatedly trip and throw his opponent.
> >
> > It really would not be a pretty fight. ;-{
I doubt that to be honest, harness is a 'force multiplier' in that it
allows the user to absord several hits. Facing an unarmoured oponant using
a quarterstaff he'd just take a knock or two while closing and then cut him
down.
William Black
> advantage
> over the firearms.
Not to me it hasn't. Smoothbore firearms punch nice neat holes in plate
armour at 200 yards. Of course you can't hit anything at that range, but
300 or 400 people letting drive downrange will hit someone now and again.
Paul J. Gans
Alex, you are, of course, right. I think that the people who
hold the other view are using the idea that the longer reach
of the quarterstaff gives some advantage. And I dare say that
it does. But, I think, not enough. The swordsman does have
the problem of getting in close enough for the kill, but once
he or she does, it is all over.
----- Paul J. Gans
PS: Since the average quarterstaff did not have hand guards,
I think another tactic might well be to use the edged weapon
to remove fingers.
Paul J. Gans
The knightly sort of supposed one on one encouters that fill
the Arthurian legends are duels of a sort, but the usually
start with lances and degenerate after that.
---- Paul J. Gans
Brian M. Scott
I'm not so sure. He'd have to move pretty quickly in order to close,
which would tend to set him up to be tripped, especially by an
opponent probably carrying much less armor.
Brian M. Scott
Tim O'Neill
> The class undertook to experiment with quarter staves. My
> attempt was against two opponents armed with two handed
> swords. It took a great deal of effort to restrain the force
> a quarter staff can produce.
>
> I have no doubt that a properly trained man armed with a
> quarter staff could kill or at least severely injure two or
> even three opponents armed with rapiers. I had no trouble
> with two men armed with long swords. It was a frightening
> experience for me. I had a very high opinion of two handed
> swordsmanship prior to this demonstration. My opinion has
> since been adjusted.
*Two* handed swords trade a lot of the versatility of
the one handed variety for more punch. The *one* handed
sword has been the side-arm of choice until the invention
of decent hand guns because it is a weapon which balances
defence and attack capacity and gives the user a variety
of ways to implement both. Personally, I find it hard to
believe that so many people would spent so much time and
money on finely made and well balanced, *expensive* weapons
like swords if they could be so easily outclassed by a
6 foot piece of wood.
> A combat between a man armed with quarter staff and a man of
> equal experience armed with *any* type of sword would be
> brief. The staff man would thump the swordsman to his knees
> with several hard jabs and swats.
?? What's the swordsman doing? Just standing there?
I've fought sword vs various pole weapons and it certainly
puts you on the defensive (ie lots of circling and dancing
backwards) but it's not hard to parry or dodge an attack,
get inside his guard and poke him in the guts. Or cut off
a hand and then skewer him. It could go the other way as
well, of course, but I think you're overstating things.
>The swordsman, being on the defensive from the start,
> would have a very bad time of it.
There are plenty of weapons which put a swordsman on the
defensive - mainly long pokey ones - but this is not a
recipe for instant defeat of the swordsman by any stretch
of the imagination.
> Heavy plate armour would simply prolong the agony as the
> staff man could repeatedly trip and throw his opponent.
Good thing plate armour wasn't heavy then. ;>
And as Bill has pointed out, good (nicely made and fitted
and therefore relatively light) plate armour would mean
the swordsman would be able to take a couple of blows,
get in close and do that gut-skewering thing. Besides,
most medieval one handed swordsmen would also have a
shield, which changes things considerably. Nothing worse
than trying to tackle a man who's using a shield when
you aren't.
> It really would not be a pretty fight. ;-{
Sorry, but my money would be on the armoured swordsman
any day. People didn't abandon other side weapons in
favour of swords for snob value - they are very useful
weapons in the widest variety of combat situations
against most other weapon combinations.
Cheers Kel,
Tim O'Neill
Tron Furu
Afropea skrev i meldingen <20010417152045...@ng-fk1.aol.com>...
unsuccessfully - ever since. I could have been misinformed.
OTOH, "Gold" would be a nice "legacy of five hundred thousand".
Are you a Mifune- fan? I have some memorabilia (photos from the shoot of the
Hidden Fortress, and a calligraphy he made, digitized.)
Tron Furu
Tron Furu
erilar skrev i meldingen ...
> A broom, mop, shovel, etc. can also be a useful weapon in the hands of
>one who knows "staff" technique 8-) I cut off a broom to have a jo for
>karate camp one summer...
Karate and jo? What school?
Hope you didn't get any splinters - that's why they reccommend oak, ash or
even maple (maybe "curtain rod" from your local wood shop, or what it is
called in english - cheaper than japanese weapons from MA stores).
>
Tron F
Afropea
>Are you a Mifune- fan?
Yes. I like him a lot. I used to be very interested in Japanese film in
general. I really enjoy Kurasawa, but my favorite director would probably be
Naruse. Of course, Naruse is less involved with period pieces and would be
more off topic on SHM ;-)!
I have some memorabilia (photos from the shoot of
>the
>Hidden Fortress, and a calligraphy he made, digitized.)
>
Sounds fascinating! ;-)
Eve
Tron Furu
alex milman skrev i meldingen <9bi1fe$c5k$1...@news.gte.com>...
>>
And there is another fabulous MA film called "Harakiri",
>
>What it is about? Or what is the English title?
"Harakiri" should be as good english as anything.
It is about an old fencing master who loses his son because of the greed of
a feudal lord, and avenges himself by challenging all the head retainers of
that lord to one on one sword duels. Nice fencing, nice photography, nice
story.
>> True. But what IS the intrinsic advantage of the sword?
>
>I'm not a medieval soldier so how would I know?
Well, you seem to have opinions on a wide range of subjects. Care to venture
one here? You have chopped wood with an axe, and....?
Which probably makes the whole subject of our discussion
>senseless.
We're getting there.....
>_Who_ with the staff vs _whom_ with the sword (and what type of a sword)?
Agreed.
We
>can only say that, based on the existing evidience, people over the ages
had been
>developing the metallic weapons.
Agreed, and to the exclusion of others, mainly.
This does not mean that in each particular case, each particular
>type of the weaponwill give a definite advantage over another.
Agreed.
>
>I see. But Japanese also had the maces. Saw one in "The Black cats in
>bamboo"
(sigh)
>> >
>> > The same goes for the maces and battleaxes. You had to be very strong
>AND skillful to use them efficiently.
>>
>> Apart from the obviousness of this proposition, how do you know?
>
>Did you ever try to cut the wood with an axe?
Yes, starting when I was 7 years old, and neither very strong nor notably
skilfull...
I did more than once and have what you can call a "negative experience".
:-)
Mee, too. I got better, though, and NEVER EVEN HIT MYSELF (sorry to raise my
voice, that was meant for my mother to hear).
IMHO one had better not compare wood chopping to fencing, not even with a
club. Only, as I believe I already said, if you wanted to pound somebodys
head down into his rib cage, which is not necessary - all it takes is to
ever so slightly fracture the skull.
>
>
>Let's say as heavy as comfortable.
Well, if you need a sort of compromise here....agreed, upon the condition
that "comfortable" include the ability of rapid acceleration. OK?
Therewere schools for fighting with practically everything.
>
>I strongly suspect that here we have a real life vs theory.
It is historical that Sokaku Takeda chased six thugs from his bath armed
with a towel. Which _he_ probably didn't really need.
I have no doubts that such schools existed but how proficient was an
average samuray is another story.
Very true. The more esoteric ones were "family traditions" like secret
recipes for soup... But many curricula included a wide variety of weapons,
also because they were meant to operate under a variety of conditions and
for different purposes.
The average samurai for all times did of course not exist, either.
>
>>
Actually, the club will have some support because it's owner should keep it
>reasonably strong. Otherwise, as a result of an impact, it can hit his
head.
No. A properly executed block does yield, so as to not risk the weapon; that
goes for swords as well.
>
>>i.e. can yield?
>
>Yes. A piece of paper with a knife made of Zolingen steel. Surprisingly,
it
>was quite efficient.
That is a different exercise. First of all, you slash, which would have
little of the impact you refer to in the preceding point (a block with a
club); second, a piece of paper has a lot of area, and doesnt move very
quickly when "pushed" due to air resistance.
I repeat: Try hanging up a pencil or similar in a piece of thread, and cut
it with your largest kitchen knife.
>
>The most obvious lesson will be: don't use kitchen knives made in Korea.
???
>> How do you know?
>
>You keep repeating the same question.
I wonder where your certainty comes from, if you _only_ base your opinions
on things you saw in the movies. There is a lot to be learnt from actually
trying to do some of these things, and many of these things (like blocking a
blow) have definite ways of doing it right - and these ways are even
described and preserved, and can be researched.
How do you know that this is not the case?
From trying it, and research. And some movies.
Tron: The
>> task is to somehow pass by this long weapon, and hit the man.
>
Alex: Yes, if you can get close enough. The main purpose of a longer weapon
would
>be >to keep an opponent far enough.
>
Tron: The whole point of having a staff is to be able to work outside the
range
>of a swordsman.
You use the distance proposition yourself, then question me about why.
Well... OK:
Alex: Doing what exactly? And for how long?
A) Not getting hit, and hitting the swordsman
B) Until you can hit the swordsman
>The question is not this rather obvious fact but the way of achieving this
>goal.
Mainly in keeping distance, that is, footwork, and in always being prepared
to strike, that is, having your weapon "loaded", having (one part of) it
retracted for a strike.
>
>>In mass levies, the ordinary foot soldiers vere given spears,
>
>In which countries?
In the nordic leidang, farmers were to bring spears, axes, bows and arrows.
>
>This is fine with me but your definition implies even higher skills.
Yes and no. You actually start learning footwork when you learn to walk, and
using your body to shift weights when you start to carry and work. Many of
the skills of combat footwork are comparable to the operation of doors: when
it opens towards you, you have to step back, when it opens away from you,
you have to follow up.... More commonsensical than the use of the sword
itself.
>>
>> So when is a spear a spear?
>
>Perhaps when it gets this piece of a metall on one end?
So then a trireme with a bronze ram is a spear?
A name is not enough to classify an item (or there would be many more "de
luxe" things in the world....)
>How long should it be to satisfy you? :-)
Too long to throw ?
>
>Yep. With some training you can use them for picking your teeth. Which is
>much more
>difficult, if not impossible, to do with a long lance.
Requires even more special talents than doing it with a club.
>
>> (like slash it around like a Hollywood
>> Mousquetaire),
>
>IIRC, these creatures (or at least some of them) already had piercing
>rapiers, not the cutting swords.
I meant not to exemplify swords by rapiers, but to illustrate the type of
movement by referring to one of the sources obviously available to you.
A sword has a different volume of space to be applied in, different contact
surfaces to apply to the opponent, and hence requires different arm and hand
movements.
So probably not too much in the area of a slashing. :-)
Even the rapier is capable of the strappado.
>
>BTW, if you re-watch "Hidden fortress" (and not only), you'll see _cutting_
>blade on a spear. Which probably makes it more "swordish" (in your
>definition) >than a rapier.
The type of slash possible with a spear comes from sliding cuts, stabbing
and retracting along some part of anatomy.
It is definitely not "swordish" when it comes to the type of body movement
required.
>
>>and based on that difference, I would exclude swords from being
>> classed as spears.
>
>Would not work. There were, at all times and in the different places, the
>piercing swords without a cutting edge (rapier, konchar, etc.)
A spear is definitely not "swordish" when it comes to the type of body
movement required, and based on that difference, I would exclude swords from
being
classed as spears.
>> I meant movies, you know...
>
>I should stop watching them? Why? You probably noticed that I did not
>mention
>"A Lone Wolf ....." as a reference.
:-)
>
>Quite possible. Which does not mean that he did not learn the authentic
>moves.
He did, taught by grandmaster Yoshio Sugino, the teacher of Mifune.
>> I do not really disagree, but what is that advantage? Not just "being a
>sword" ?
>>
>
>Well, it could work as following. Everybody _knew_ that sword has an
>advantage (had been taught in schools, told in the churches, etc.) and,
based on this
>knowledge, they considered the people with the swords as having advantage.
Consider this a psyhological warfare. :-)
Yes, I was about to suggest that when it came to the second cousin....
IMHO the sword's andvantages are many. Versatility in ways to damage others,
and in areas where it can be employed (open ground, forest, indoors, aboard
ship....), as well as areas where it can be worn and carried. It is also
useful as a status marker, which a stick is not, etc.
I just went back to check how we ended up with this thread...
There is the "evidence from historical evolution"-thesis:
1) Swords replaced other weapons, e.g. the quarterstaff
2) Weapons are rated - and chosen - according to effectiveness
3) Given 1 and 2, swords are more effective than e.g. a quarterstaff.
I hold 1 and 2 to be true. 3 I hold to be true "ceteris paribus", so to
speak, which is a rare thing in combat. When it comes to weapons and combat,
the answer to almost any question begins with "It depends", as it often
comes down to weighting a great many factors: skill, terrain, situation....
it is an "art", after all.
The truth of 1 and 2 probably indicate that on a statistical basis, the
outcome favoured swords more often than not, but I am convinced that there
was always considerable deviation from the mean.....
Tron
Tron Furu
Afropea skrev i meldingen <20010417193950...@ng-fz1.aol.com>...
>Tron Furu
>
>>Are you a Mifune- fan?
>
>Yes. I like him a lot. I used to be very interested in Japanese film in
>general. I really enjoy Kurasawa, but my favorite director would probably
be
>Naruse. Of course, Naruse is less involved with period pieces and would be
>more off topic on SHM ;-)!
not so much becauseof the filmatic aspect.
>
>I have some memorabilia >>
>
>Sounds fascinating! ;-)
We're putting it up on the club website; I'll post here then.
TF
Kel Rekuta
>
> Kel Rekuta <kre...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3ADB92B9...@sympatico.ca...
> > William Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > Neither swords nor quarterstaffs were ever battlefield primary weapons.
> > >
> > > Both are civil weapons of self defence rather than military tools.
> >
> > Wow! You really should visit the Wallace Collection if you
> > think swords weren't primary battlefield weapons! Or maybe
> > read a book about medieval armour and weapons, say Oakeshott
> > or Edge and Paddock.
>
> I've read Oakeshott, and lots of others,
My apologies, my comment was ill worded. I should not have
suggested you read popular sources when you possibly had. I
took such exception to your second remark that I missed the
intention of the first.
I agree quarter staves were not primary battlefield weapons.
Also, by defining "primary" as the first weapon applied in
combat, you are also correct; the sword was not the first
weapon used on the battlefield. Cavalry used the lance until
it was shattered or lost. You might even describe swords,
axes, hammers and maces as "back-up" weapons. Whatever
pleases you.
To dismiss chivalric swords as mere secondary weapons for
the battlefield, suitable only for civil self defence, is
just unrealistic. The sword was an integral part of the
medieval warrior, not just another sharpened club dangling
from his belt.
Kel
Kel Rekuta
>
> "Kel Rekuta" <kre...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3ADB8CD5...@sympatico.ca...
>
> > A combat between a man armed with quarter staff and a man of
> > equal experience armed with *any* type of sword would be
> > brief. The staff man would thump the swordsman to his knees
> > with several hard jabs and swats. The swordsman, being on
> > the defensive from the start, would have a very bad time of
> > it. Heavy plate armour would simply prolong the agony as the
> > staff man could repeatedly trip and throw his opponent.
> >
> > It really would not be a pretty fight. ;-{
>
> Well, 1st it had been proved on shm that English bows have a tremendous
> advantage
> over the firearms. Now we know that English piece of wood has a tremendows
> advantage over the iron weapons.
No. This is your inference, not mine. My opinions were
expressed in response to a specific question about an
individual combat between a man armed with quarter staff
against another man armed with a non specified sword. You
are welcome to disagree with me.
The following tirade is quite unnecessary although humorous.
Which brings a rather obvious question why
> Brits
> bothered with building all these ironworks? It's probably safe to assume
> that these
> miracles had been limited only to the certain parts of England and to the
> Japanese-run
> schools of the martial arts: the rest of the mankind (including most of
> England and Japan) was
> stupid enough to spend enormous efforts and money to produce first bronze
> and than iron weapons.
> It's also quite obvious that the numerous peasant revolts had been crushed
> simply because these
> peasants had been too stupid to use staffs and clubs: they would defeat
> their armoured opponents at no
> time. The only unresolved question is how Yukatan Indians did not kill all
> Spaniards at the 1st encounter:
> they definitely had clubs vs swords. Perhaps they had been too stupid to
> make their wooden
> weapons 6 feet long. :-)
Perhaps if the "Yukatan Indians" (Incas? Mayans?) had
realized the Spaniards were so efficient at killing lightly
armed warriors intent on capturing instead of killing their
opponents, events might have ended differently. Thousands of
heavily armed warriors might have dealt with a few hundred
Spaniards in short order.
Didn't happen though.
Seriously, though. I don't presume that quarter staves are
as efficient battlefield weapons as sharpened steel weapons
like axes, spears and broad swords. The situation described
earlier had nothing to do with pitched battles. You take my
comments out of context.
Kel
Kari Vatanen
> Silver gives a 'table' of what can beat what, but in my practical
> experience any two men will beat a single man, ...
I've seen a lot of fighting, and it's not uncommon for one man to beat
multiple opponents.
-Kari
Ed Reppert
<k.va...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> I've seen a lot of fighting, and it's not uncommon for one man to beat
> multiple opponents.
True, but when it happens it's usually because the two haven't trained
properly to work as a team. A trained *team* is a lot order for one man
to beat than two (or even three or four) individuals. They tend to get
in each other's way. :-)
alex milman
"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:ZE4D6.8764$R6.2...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
>
> alex milman skrev i meldingen <9bi1fe$c5k$1...@news.gte.com>...
>
>
> >>
> And there is another fabulous MA film called "Harakiri",
> >
> >What it is about? Or what is the English title?
>
> "Harakiri" should be as good english as anything.
> It is about an old fencing master who loses his son because of the greed
of
> a feudal lord, and avenges himself by challenging all the head retainers
of
> that lord to one on one sword duels. Nice fencing, nice photography, nice
> story.
>
> >> True. But what IS the intrinsic advantage of the sword?
> >
> >I'm not a medieval soldier so how would I know?
>
> Well, you seem to have opinions on a wide range of subjects.
Yep. But it's you who brought all this "intrincic" issue. For me it's quite
simple:
over the ages people went from the wooden to bronze and then steel weapons.
Unless you can come with some valid proof that all this was a huge mistake,
I'll stick
to the clearly expressed preference of the professional soldiers (from Egypt
to our time).
>Care to venture
> one here? You have chopped wood with an axe, and....?
Very hard work for a unexperienced person (me). Less hard and more efficient
when experienced
people do the same job.
>
> >
> >I see. But Japanese also had the maces. Saw one in "The Black cats in
> >bamboo"
>
> (sigh)
?????
> >
> >I strongly suspect that here we have a real life vs theory.
> It is historical that Sokaku Takeda chased six thugs from his bath armed
> with a towel. Which _he_ probably didn't really need.
Your example proves my point. These six thugs definitely were not proficient
with their weapons.
> >
> >>
> Actually, the club will have some support because it's owner should keep
it
> >reasonably strong. Otherwise, as a result of an impact, it can hit his
> head.
> No. A properly executed block does yield, so as to not risk the weapon;
that
> goes for swords as well.
> >
> >>i.e. can yield?
> >
> >Yes. A piece of paper with a knife made of Zolingen steel. Surprisingly,
> it
> >was quite efficient.
> That is a different exercise. First of all, you slash, which would have
> little of the impact you refer to in the preceding point (a block with a
> club); second, a piece of paper has a lot of area, and doesnt move very
> quickly when "pushed" due to air resistance.
Neither does a weapon held by your opponent.
> I repeat: Try hanging up a pencil or similar in a piece of thread, and cut
> it with your largest kitchen knife.
Why should I do these, rather stupid, things? Pencil hanging on a thread has
very
little in common with a weapon held by your human opponent. Especially one
with
a two-hand grip.
> >
> >The most obvious lesson will be: don't use kitchen knives made in Korea.
> ???
>
Use one made out of a good steel (like Solingen): they tend to be sharper.
> >> How do you know?
> >
> >You keep repeating the same question.
> I wonder where your certainty comes from, if you _only_ base your opinions
> on things you saw in the movies. There is a lot to be learnt from actually
> trying to do some of these things, and many of these things (like blocking
a
> blow) have definite ways of doing it right - and these ways are even
> described and preserved, and can be researched.
Sure. OTOH, it does not look like you made any convincing conclusions based
on your studies, if you keep telling about advantage of the wooden weapons.
> >
> >>In mass levies, the ordinary foot soldiers vere given spears,
> >
> >In which countries?
> In the nordic leidang, farmers were to bring spears, axes, bows and
arrows.
Not with the spears only as your initial statement implied.
> >> So when is a spear a spear?
> >
> >Perhaps when it gets this piece of a metall on one end?
>
> So then a trireme with a bronze ram is a spear?
Probably not because the rest of it can't be defined as a "pole". Neither is
a rifle
with a byonet (by the same reason).
> A name is not enough to classify an item (or there would be many more "de
> luxe" things in the world....)
With your example being a failure, I could say that the whole conclusion is
wrong
but I agree that a name may be inadequate. This is why some extra
characteristic
usually added, like "long" (preferably with a definite range: 9' - 12',
etc.) or "short".
But otherwise, name gives you a general idea.
>
> >How long should it be to satisfy you? :-)
>
> Too long to throw ?
There were/are multiple versions of the throwing spears. IIRC, Homer's
heroes
quite often used their spears as throwing weapons. So did the Romans.
Shaka's
innovation was to switch from throwing to stabbing spear (which was shorter,
not
longer, than a throwing one).
>
> >
> >Yep. With some training you can use them for picking your teeth. Which is
> >much more
> >difficult, if not impossible, to do with a long lance.
> Requires even more special talents than doing it with a club.
So we have a clear definition, at least for a club: a (wooden) weapon, which
can't be
used for picking one's teeth.
>
> >
> >> (like slash it around like a Hollywood
> >> Mousquetaire),
> >
> >IIRC, these creatures (or at least some of them) already had piercing
> >rapiers, not the cutting swords.
> I meant not to exemplify swords by rapiers,
Then why mention them?
>but to illustrate the type of
> movement by referring to one of the sources obviously available to you.
This source is widely available to everybody but I don't remember me
referencing
it (in this discussion) as a source of information. If you want to go into
the "slashing"
area, I'd recommend Polish historic movies like "With Fire and Sword",
"Potop",
and "Pan Wolodiewsky" (AFAIK, the main actors spent considerable efforts
learning
fencing on the sabres).
>
> >
> >BTW, if you re-watch "Hidden fortress" (and not only), you'll see
_cutting_
> >blade on a spear. Which probably makes it more "swordish" (in your
> >definition) >than a rapier.
> The type of slash possible with a spear comes from sliding cuts, stabbing
> and retracting along some part of anatomy.
> It is definitely not "swordish" when it comes to the type of body movement
> required.
The fact remains that it can do both cutting and piercing.
>
> >
> >>and based on that difference, I would exclude swords from being
> >> classed as spears.
> >
> >Would not work. There were, at all times and in the different places, the
> >piercing swords without a cutting edge (rapier, konchar, etc.)
>
> A spear is definitely not "swordish" when it comes to the type of body
> movement required, and based on that difference, I would exclude swords
from
> being
> classed as spears.
AFAIK, nobody defines a weapon based on the "type of movement". It is
defined
by functionality: piercing, cutting, long-range, short-range, etc.
>
> >
> >Quite possible. Which does not mean that he did not learn the authentic
> >moves.
> He did, taught by grandmaster Yoshio Sugino, the teacher of Mifune.
>
> >> I do not really disagree, but what is that advantage? Not just "being a
> >sword" ?
> >>
> >
> >Well, it could work as following. Everybody _knew_ that sword has an
> >advantage (had been taught in schools, told in the churches, etc.) and,
> based on this
> >knowledge, they considered the people with the swords as having
advantage.
> Consider this a psyhological warfare. :-)
>
> Yes, I was about to suggest that when it came to the second cousin....
>
> IMHO the sword's andvantages are many. Versatility in ways to damage
others,
> and in areas where it can be employed (open ground, forest, indoors,
aboard
> ship....
AFAIK, axe would be just as useful in all these environments with one extra
advantage:
if it is heavy enough, it does not matter too much how you'll hit your
opponent (OTOH,
it's piercing abilities are limited). Then, you should define what type of a
"sword" you are talking
about. Indoors, especially with the low cellings, short "sword" (sabre,
dirk, etc.) can be much
more useful than a huge two-handed weapon. The same may go for the fighting
in any
environment with the limited space. In this sense English (maybe not only
English) is quite
vague: "a weapon with a long pointed blade and sharp cutting edges". Which
leaves a number
of questions. How long? IIRC, some of the ancient swords had been rather
short. Is "pointed"
a necessary attribute? I saw some swords, used by the executioners, which
were not pointed.
Were they still swords? Is rapier a "sword"? No "cutting" egdge, AFAIK. Is
sabre a sword?
At least some modifications, like Caucassian "shashka", are not pointed.
Usually, everything is
dumped into the "sword" category.
>), as well as areas where it can be worn and carried.
Well, in a favour of your weapon of a preference, stick can be carried
everywhere. It's a
matter of fashion/conventions.
>It is also
> useful as a status marker, which a stick is not,
A _VERY WRONG_ statement. Stick often was a status maker: royal skepter,
mareshall's
batton, officer's cane, etc. all the way down to a simple stick serving as
an authority symbol
of a low-level supervisor (in Ancient Egypt or XIX century Russia).
David J. Starr
slide down the wood until it reaches fingers... Sounds plausible to
me.
David Starr
David C. Pugh
> >
> >What it is about? Or what is the English title?
>
> "Harakiri" should be as good english as anything.
> It is about an old fencing master who loses his son because of the
greed of
> a feudal lord, and avenges himself by challenging all the head
retainers of
> that lord to one on one sword duels. Nice fencing, nice
photography, nice
> story.
Yes, and IMHO of greater interest is that it was utterly subversive of
the harakiri and samurai mythologies. Personally I found the climactic
sword duels the aspects of least fascination, as compared with the
shift in our perspective on the younger man and what was actually
going on in the early scenes, and the horrible sting in the tail with
the final voiceover...........
David
William Black
> > > > Both are civil weapons of self defence rather than military tools.
> > >
> > > Wow! You really should visit the Wallace Collection if you
> > > think swords weren't primary battlefield weapons! Or maybe
> > > read a book about medieval armour and weapons, say Oakeshott
> > > or Edge and Paddock.
> >
> > I've read Oakeshott, and lots of others,
>
> My apologies, my comment was ill worded. I should not have
> suggested you read popular sources when you possibly had. I
> took such exception to your second remark that I missed the
> intention of the first.
You gracious apology is most humbly accepted
> I agree quarter staves were not primary battlefield weapons.
> Also, by defining "primary" as the first weapon applied in
> combat, you are also correct; the sword was not the first
> weapon used on the battlefield. Cavalry used the lance until
> it was shattered or lost. You might even describe swords,
> axes, hammers and maces as "back-up" weapons. Whatever
> pleases you.
Axes and long hammers are primary weapons, Huscarls used the long handled
axe as a primary weapon and late medieval armoured footmen used several
forms of long handled hammer, several are ilustrated in Ewart Oakeshott's
'European Armour and Weapons'.
Here's an easy guide:
A primary weapon is what you fight with, a secondary weapon is what you use
to get home with.
Bryn Fraser
<david...@analog.com> writes
> Nice sharp edged sword, parry the quarterstaff blow, let the blade
>slide down the wood until it reaches fingers... Sounds plausible to
>me.
>
>David Starr
Good reason to use a Falstaff...
Of which I have three of varying thickness... ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>"Paul J. Gans" wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> PS: Since the average quarterstaff did not have hand guards,
>> I think another tactic might well be to use the edged weapon
>> to remove fingers.
Bryn Fraser
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."
Isaac Asimov
-
http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk
http://www.thefrasers.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian M. Scott
<david...@analog.com> wrote:
> Nice sharp edged sword, parry the quarterstaff blow, let the blade
>slide down the wood until it reaches fingers... Sounds plausible to
>me.
It sounds quite optimistic to me (on the basis of some modest
experience as the swordsman). You'd do better to parry or block with
your shield and try to get inside, though that presents its own
problems. (Don't forget that a quarterstaff has *two* ends.)
Brian M. Scott
D. Spencer Hines
is about 5 feet 2 inches tall ---- when weighing and considering his
personal anecdotal evidence of this sort.
----
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." _La Trahison des clercs_ [The Treason of the
Intellectuals] (1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor
"Brian M. Scott" <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:3addc69f....@enews.newsguy.com...
erilar
<tron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
> erilar skrev i meldingen ...
> >In article <JJKC6.8208$R6.1...@news1.oke.nextra.no>, "Tron Furu"
> ><tron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
> >
>
> > A broom, mop, shovel, etc. can also be a useful weapon in the hands of
> >one who knows "staff" technique 8-) I cut off a broom to have a jo for
> >karate camp one summer...
>
> Karate and jo? What school?
> Hope you didn't get any splinters - that's why they reccommend oak, ash or
> even maple (maybe "curtain rod" from your local wood shop, or what it is
> called in english - cheaper than japanese weapons from MA stores).
> >
Oh, my bo is a good one, but we were going to have a jo class or two
that year. The yearly weekend karate camp was always a "sampler", with
classes in various styles.
erilar
<ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> PS: Since the average quarterstaff did not have hand guards,
> I think another tactic might well be to use the edged weapon
> to remove fingers.
Ouch! Memory of getting knuckles rapped in bo practice...
Paul J. Gans
> In article <3ADD9A05...@analog.com>, David J. Starr
> <david...@analog.com> writes
>> Nice sharp edged sword, parry the quarterstaff blow, let the blade
>>slide down the wood until it reaches fingers... Sounds plausible to
>>me.
>>
>>David Starr
> Good reason to use a Falstaff...
> Of which I have three of varying thickness... ;)
That's nothing to shake a spear at.
---- Paul J. Gans
Ashland Henderson
It is optimistic. Swords catch in wood, and if it's a good tough
piece of wood the wood doesn't just break. In my own opinion
as a more-or-less expert with broadsword and with some, though
not much, familiarity with quarterstaff, sword to staff with nothing
else tends to favor the staff. It's not open and shut, but I think
the staff would have the edge. Add a shield or even decent
leather armor and the staff man should run. Anyone who
thinks good armor makes you clumsy or slow has never
had it on and really practiced with it.
Ashland Henderson
news:u4aKElDyAHA.293@cpmsnbbsa09...
> One needs to keep in mind that Scott weighs 119 pounds, soaking wet and
> is about 5 feet 2 inches tall ---- when weighing and considering his
> personal anecdotal evidence of this sort.
I'm not, and Scott's basically correct.
tiglath
and
> is about 5 feet 2 inches tall ----
Tu est plus haute, mais pas plus grand.
Bryn Fraser
<ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes
Nice one...
Tron Furu
>Yep. But it's you who brought all this "intrincic" issue.
You are right. I did that because I would like to understand WHY something
happened, including how and when it did. As you could have seen from the
last paragraph i my last post, I mainly agree with you when it comes to the
circumstance THAT it happened; which is not very interesting to discuss,
because it doesn't really increase one's understanding a lot.
If all you really want is for me to agree that it in fact did happen, I
hereby do so.
For me it's quite simple: over the ages people went from the wooden to
bronze and then steel weapons.
>Unless you can come with some valid proof that all this was a huge mistake,
>I'll stick >to the clearly expressed preference of the professional
soldiers (from Egypt
>to our time).
If all you really want is for me to agree that it in fact did happen, I
hereby do so. I merely maintain that it is also a fact that even with the
introduction of new technology, older technology may still not become
obsolete over night; and the analysis of effectiveness in any field has to
include all relevant factors.
If you did read my last post, I said all this in the last paragraphs of it.
I have never claimed that your point of view is a mistake, and I think you
should continue to hold the opinion you hold. You should, however, stop
sticking to opinions, whatever they may be.
>> >I strongly suspect that here we have a real life vs theory.
>> It is historical that Sokaku Takeda chased six thugs from his bath armed
>> with a towel. Which _he_ probably didn't really need.
>
>Your example proves my point. These six thugs definitely were not
proficient
>with their weapons.
No, it does not, for several reasons.
A) There is no information on that in the story.
B) That was not your point. You said that samurai using everything as a
weapon was theory. I proved you wrong. So it actually disproves your point.
C) Simply because any premis does not fit your conclusion, you can't just
change it or invent others. If your convictions are of such a nature that
they can never be wrong, they are not theory, but belief, and any discussion
is pointless: like paranoia, no evidence can refute it.
>Neither does a weapon held by your opponent.
Yes it does, and you just don't know otherwise, nor can you present anything
but a mere assertion . Your saying so, insouciantly based on your confessed
lack of knowledge, doesn't make it so. Repeating it after I have explained
to you why it is not so, doesn't change that.
Executing a block is not trying to hold your weapon as rigidly in place as
you can, it is more like receiving something thrown. Movies are not real
life.
>> I repeat: Try hanging up a pencil or similar in a piece of thread, and
cut
>> it with your largest kitchen knife.
>
>Why should I do these, rather stupid, things?
It is called a practical experiment, and as it would immediately, or
eventually, at least, make it evident to you that cutting a weapon someone
is holding in their hand is very different from chopping a log on a block,
it would refute your unfounded assertions. Given that, I can understand both
why you are reluctant to do it, and why you would think it stupid.
Pencil hanging on a thread has very little in common with a weapon held by
your human opponent.
No, it has a lot in common; and how would you know otherwise? Your refusing
to acknowledge reality does not change it.
Especially one with a two-hand grip.
Most people I know can bend both arms. Some can even do it at the same
time.
>
>Sure. OTOH, it does not look like you made any convincing conclusions based
>on your studies, if you keep telling about advantage of the wooden weapons.
1. I am not trying to convince you (its more like educating you).
2. I have reached the same conclusion you do when it comes to historical
development; you seem equally convinced of that.
I have also, and you have not, proposed hypotheses about the reasons for
this development, which permits me to understand possible exceptions. You
seem to think that the advantage of one weapon over any other can be
captured in a universal rule. A universal rule falls with one
counterexample. If it ain't necessarily so, then it becomes important to
analyse events by looking at the factors involved. You cannot permit
exceptions, and so have to discredit any evidence to the contrary of your
statements.
>> In the nordic leidang, farmers were to bring spears, axes, bows and
>arrows.
>
>Not with the spears only as your initial statement implied.
My initial statement was ">>In mass levies, the ordinary foot soldiers vere
given spears"
Please note that it does not contain the word "only", and does not imply it.
They were required to have spears, and were not required to have swords.
>Probably not because the rest of it can't be defined as a "pole". Neither
is
>a rifle with a byonet (by the same reason).
Well, there are many criteria for classifying things. To classify them by
their names, as you do, is only superficial. To classify them by their
material is possible, but sterile. I prefer to classify them according to
their mode of operation. It is equally arbitrary, in some ways, but the
benefit is that by classifying them this way, one can group them together
according to the skills you need to use them. This gives functional
categories where elements of tactics are valid for many different weapons.
You would be very dissapointed if you were going to combat, and demanded to
be given a spear and training in the use of a spear, meaning a long spear,
and on they day you march out, you are given an assegai.
Bayonet fighting with long bayonets (sabre size) on long rifles forms the
basis of the japanese discipline of jukendo ("bayonet fighting"), and the
tactics (including stances, footwork, attacks, parries, etc.) are the same
as for fighting with a short spear (4 ft, boar spear, jo). Knowing one of
them facilitates learning the other, and this is the pragmatic advantage of
functional categories. Otherwise, you end up having to classify the
chivalric lance and the assegai together, based on the name, and you can no
longer describe rules for the members of the class, and then the class is
without a point, every member of it having one notwithstanding.
>
>> A name is not enough to classify an item (or there would be many more "de
>> luxe" things in the world....)
>
>With your example being a failure, I could say that the whole conclusion is
>wrong
It was my example of your way of thinking. I am glad you noticed that it
failed.
>This source is widely available to everybody but I don't remember me
>referencing >it (in this discussion) as a source of information.
The source I am referring to, is the Movies.
If you want to go into >the "slashing" >area, I'd recommend Polish historic
movies like "With Fire and Sword", >"Potop", >and "Pan Wolodiewsky" (AFAIK,
the main actors spent considerable efforts
>learning >fencing on the sabres).
That would be very interesting; unfortunately, hereabouts film import from
Poland is generally restricted to the internationally famous names like
Kieszlowski (sp?).
>
>The fact remains that it can do both cutting and piercing.
The fact remains that cutting and piercing can be done with a can opener,
too, and so is not the definition of a sword.
>AFAIK, nobody defines a weapon based on the "type of movement". It is
>defined by functionality: piercing, cutting, long-range, short-range, etc.
What is the basis for this functionality? What does every one of these
functions require? What differentiates between two weapons of different make
but similar functionality?
And what do you think is the rationale for defining a weapon by
functionality, or anything else, for that matter.
>> IMHO the sword's andvantages are many. Versatility in ways to damage
>others, >> and in areas where it can be employed (open ground, forest,
indoors,
>aboard ship....
>
>AFAIK, axe would be just as useful in all these environments
How far do you know? Do you have any ways of arguing for this thesis? Any
relevant ways of comparing axe and sword?
with one extra advantage:
>if it is heavy enough, it does not matter too much how you'll hit your
>opponent (OTOH, >it's piercing abilities are limited).
I am sure you mean the club, not the axe.
>Then, you should define what type of a "sword" you are talking about.
Oh, you notice now? You have been talking about "the" sword for a long time
now.
But this is good; now you are beginning to analyse.
>Indoors, especially with the low cellings, short "sword" (sabre, dirk,
etc.) can be much more useful than a huge two-handed weapon.
I do not think anyone ever wore a two-handed sword with their evening
attire. Just like one carries a gun in one's pocket, but not a cannon.
BTW, the technique for halfsword permits the use of longer weapons even
indoors.
>The same may go for the fighting in any environment with the limited space.
In this sense English (maybe not only >English) is quite >vague: "a weapon
with a long pointed blade and sharp cutting edges". Which
>leaves a number of questions.
Yes, the definition is couched as a conjunction of two attributes;
obviously, this doesn't always hold. But generally, variants are
modifications of a "full" sword (i.e., there are developmental stages
involving "full" swords), and have at least one of the attributes. OTOH,
english may have names for most of the subcategories, but someone else must
confirm that.
>Well, in a favour of your weapon of a preference, stick can be carried
>everywhere. It's a matter of fashion/conventions.
I am convinced a stick itself was never very fashionable, and not very
practical indoors.
>
>>It is also useful as a status marker, which a stick is not,
>
>A _VERY WRONG_ statement. Stick often was a status maker:
I am sure that many status markers included elements of wood; however, it
was not the _stick_ that made it a status marker, it was the symbolic value;
just like paper money, not a useful artifact as such, but valuable as long
as it retains its symbolic function.
There was little status connected to a piece of wood as such, and that goes
for a quarterstaff as well.
TF
bogus address
> *Two* handed swords trade a lot of the versatility of the one handed
> variety for more punch. The *one* handed sword has been the side-arm
> of choice until the invention of decent hand guns because it is a
> weapon which balances defence and attack capacity and gives the user
> a variety of ways to implement both.
Militarily, one-on-one fights are irrelevant. What counts is what
happens when you throw opposing masses of fighters at each other.
In particular, once the projectiles are exhausted and they have to
close.
A thousand guys waving big sticks are likely to fall in a tangled heap.
A thousand guys holding sharp things pointed straight forward, or
manipulating the orientation of an edged weapon through a relatively
small area dead ahead while relying on the momentum of a charge to
apply most of the force, is a much scarier proposition. A swordsman
at a run only needs to keep that weapon firmly pointed in the right
direction for a fraction of a second after closing within staff-whack
distance; only an implausibly accurate hit will stop him that fast.
And once the initial shock has settled into an all-out melee, anything
that needs a big swing is a liability.
The old two-handed Scottish sword is preposterous as a weapon for
single combat or small-scale fights. Given the Highlanders' usual
tactic of the whole clan shouting YAAARGH!!! in chorus and running
like hell at the opposition, it starts to make sense. The more
momentum you're wielding the better.
In somewhat practical terms, given that there's a big anti-capitalist
demo coming up in Glasgow shortly, what do people here think would be
a suitable tactic countering police riot shields? Scaffolding pipes
or planks used as schiltrons and aimed at the feet come to mind, to
knock the enemy off balance.
(Considerations motivated by watching a lot of competitive sabre
fencing - it's all about momentum, and as a spectator sport it's
like watching paint dry. Two folks run full-tilt at each other,
bang, light goes on, end of bout).
Another momentum weapon was the Maori patu, like a stone ping-pong
bat. You used it flat with the handle toward you in a karate-punch
action, ideally taking the top of your opponent's skull off in one
hit. Dunno what Maori mass tactics were like but again, the faster
you could hurtle at your opponent the more effective that thing would
be.
========> Email to "jc" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce. <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
Adam Phillips
Perhaps you are only discussing European or English military history here?
There are countless examples of Samurai using single (katana) and two handed
(dai-katana) swords in battle.
The sword was not only the primary weapon it was often the only weapon
carried.
(They had various daggers etc. but I think they are regarded as tools not
weapons
in this dicussion).
Also as a general comment anything you can do with a staff can also be done
with a spear.
The ancient Greeks considered that the spear would always beat the sword.
Regards,
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bhrs9$dck$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>
>
> I've read Oakeshott, and lots of others, please give me an example of a
alex milman
"David C. Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
news:CihD6.10477$NR.8...@news3.oke.nextra.no...
>
> Tron Furu <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message news:ZE4D6.8764
> > And there is another fabulous MA film called "Harakiri",
> > >
> > >What it is about? Or what is the English title?
> >
> > "Harakiri" should be as good english as anything.
> > It is about an old fencing master who loses his son because of the
> greed of
> > a feudal lord, and avenges himself by challenging all the head
> retainers of
> > that lord to one on one sword duels. Nice fencing, nice
> photography, nice
> > story.
>
> Yes, and IMHO of greater interest is that it was utterly subversive of
> the harakiri and samurai mythologies.
Regardless this movie, IMHO, the whole harakiri stuff is blown out of
proportion.
Big numbers of the samurais did not commit it and prefered to became ronins
when
their clans had been disbanded/defeated/whatever. And, after this a lot of
them
had been looking for an employment with any existing clan. Pretty much like
any
"normal" mercenary would do.
Of course, for the high-placed members of the defeated/<whatever> clan this
was
simply not an option. Judging by "Tale of Esitsune", the high-ranking
captives would
be executed (probably Europeans had been a little bit more "civilized" in
this aspect or
simply valued money higher). The same goes for the cases when somebody had
an
option of commiting a suicide vs being executed (with a possibility of being
executed
in some "interesting" manner) by the feudal lord whom he displeased. Which
leaves
only a limited percentage of people who commited harakiri out of a pure
loyalty.
But, of course, we only hear about the "glorious" cases. :-)
alex milman
> alex milman skrev i meldingen <9bk1g7$dvn$1...@news.gte.com>...>
>
> >Yep. But it's you who brought all this "intrincic" issue.
> You are right. I did that because I would like to understand WHY something
> happened, including how and when it did. As you could have seen from the
> last paragraph i my last post, I mainly agree with you when it comes to
the
> circumstance THAT it happened; which is not very interesting to discuss,
> because it doesn't really increase one's understanding a lot.
> If all you really want is for me to agree that it in fact did happen, I
> hereby do so.
>
> For me it's quite simple: over the ages people went from the wooden to
> bronze and then steel weapons.
> >Unless you can come with some valid proof that all this was a huge
mistake,
> >I'll stick >to the clearly expressed preference of the professional
> soldiers (from Egypt
> >to our time).
> If all you really want is for me to agree that it in fact did happen, I
> hereby do so. I merely maintain that it is also a fact that even with the
> introduction of new technology, older technology may still not become
> obsolete over night;
Who says that it did? Swords, sabres, etc. remained a part of the army
weaponry
well after the introduction of the firearms and even the modern firearms.
>and the analysis of effectiveness in any field has to
> include all relevant factors.
> If you did read my last post, I said all this in the last paragraphs of
it.
> I have never claimed that your point of view is a mistake, and I think you
> should continue to hold the opinion you hold. You should, however, stop
> sticking to opinions, whatever they may be.
Me sticking to the opinions? There is a lot of people in shm who can confirm
that
I never stick to any opinion and, actually, never had any on any subject
(except Paul's
attitude toward the horses). :-)
>
> >> >I strongly suspect that here we have a real life vs theory.
> >> It is historical that Sokaku Takeda chased six thugs from his bath
armed
> >> with a towel. Which _he_ probably didn't really need.
> >
> >Your example proves my point. These six thugs definitely were not
> proficient
> >with their weapons.
> No, it does not, for several reasons.
> A) There is no information on that in the story.
> B) That was not your point. You said that samurai using everything as a
> weapon was theory.
I did not say _that_. I said that _every_ samurai being proficient with the
wide
variety of the weapons is a theory. You are bringing a single case, which is
irrelevant
to what I was saying. Could _every_ samurai do the same?
>I proved you wrong. So it actually disproves your point.
No, it simply shows that you are not paying attention to what is written and
snipping
the parts, which do not fit your idea of what I was saying.
> C) Simply because any premis does not fit your conclusion, you can't just
> change it or invent others. If your convictions are of such a nature that
> they can never be wrong, they are not theory, but belief, and any
discussion
> is pointless: like paranoia, no evidence can refute it.
As for the paranoia, it's definitely not me who has it. You agreed with my
premise
that the weapons of steel have an advantage over the wooden weapons. We both
agree that in any particular case situation can differ. Still, you are
trying to prove
something, which you never bothered to define clearly. What exactly is your
point
and how it related to the issue we are discussing?
BTW, I did not make any personal remarks about you or your beliefs and
strongly
recommend you to behave the same way.
>
>
> >Neither does a weapon held by your opponent.
> Yes it does, and you just don't know otherwise, nor can you present
anything
> but a mere assertion .
Neither did you. BTW, as a personal favor, can you, please, learn to snip
posts
in such a way that the coherent pieces of text are saved? I'm not going back
to the
earlier posts to find out what you are arguing against.
>Your saying so, insouciantly based on your confessed
> lack of knowledge, doesn't make it so. Repeating it after I have explained
> to you why it is not so, doesn't change that.
> Executing a block is not trying to hold your weapon as rigidly in place
As I already noticed, you have obvious difficulties with understanding
what's
written. Even worse, you are inventing things of your own and attributing
them
to me (not a 1st time). I did not use a word "rigid" and it would be rather
stupid
to do so even based on elementary physics (do you remember that mv = const
for an "ideal" impact?). But there is a big gap between anh absolute
rigidness and
absolute absense of it (pencil hanging on a thread) and real life fits in
between.
>as
> you can, it is more like receiving something thrown. Movies are not real
> life.
No, they are not.
But your example, pencil hanging on a thread, is not an analogy of a person
helding a weapon. Especially, if this weapon is held by two hands.
>
> >> I repeat: Try hanging up a pencil or similar in a piece of thread, and
> cut
> >> it with your largest kitchen knife.
> >
> >Why should I do these, rather stupid, things?
> It is called a practical experiment,
No, it's called inability to create a correct model. In a real life, it
usually results in
a failure of a project.
[the rest is snipped without reading]
alex milman
>
> alex milman <am...@gte.com> wrote in message
> news:9bhlu7$b51$1...@news.gte.com...
> >
> > Well, 1st it had been proved on shm that English bows have a tremendous
> > advantage
> > over the firearms.
>
[deep sigh]
It was a thing called "irony"..... IIRC, there was even :-) at the end, just
in case
somebody missed it.
alex milman
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:%h2D6.16$m3....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
>
> >> A combat between a man armed with quarter staff and a man of
> >> equal experience armed with *any* type of sword would be
> >> brief. The staff man would thump the swordsman to his knees
> >> with several hard jabs and swats. The swordsman, being on
> >> the defensive from the start, would have a very bad time of
> >> it. Heavy plate armour would simply prolong the agony as the
> >> staff man could repeatedly trip and throw his opponent.
> >>
> >> It really would not be a pretty fight. ;-{
>
> > advantage
tremendows
why
> > Brits
> > bothered with building all these ironworks? It's probably safe to assume
> > that these
> > miracles had been limited only to the certain parts of England and to
the
> > Japanese-run
> > schools of the martial arts: the rest of the mankind (including most of
> > England and Japan) was
> > stupid enough to spend enormous efforts and money to produce first
bronze
> > and than iron weapons.
> > It's also quite obvious that the numerous peasant revolts had been
crushed
> > simply because these
> > peasants had been too stupid to use staffs and clubs: they would defeat
> > their armoured opponents at no
> > time. The only unresolved question is how Yukatan Indians did not kill
all
> > Spaniards at the 1st encounter:
> > they definitely had clubs vs swords. Perhaps they had been too stupid to
> > make their wooden
> > weapons 6 feet long. :-)
>
>
> hold the other view are using the idea that the longer reach
> of the quarterstaff gives some advantage.
I suspect (but don't tell anybody) that part of this conviction could come
after an extensive beating on the head in some martial arts school. Don't
take me wrong, being a reactionarry (as you well know), I consider beating
as one of the legitimate methods of putting something into the student's
head.
_What_ had been put into this head is a completely different story. :-)
> And I dare say that
> it does.
Sure. Being longer, it gives a longer reach.
> But, I think, not enough. The swordsman does have
> the problem of getting in close enough for the kill, but once
> he or she does, it is all over.
Very well put. And, as statistics shows, people armed with the sticks
usually
tend not to wait until swordsman manages to come closer and prefer to run
(or to give away whatever goodies this swordsman wants). Of course, when
pushed to the corner, person may behave differently.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
>
> PS: Since the average quarterstaff did not have hand guards,
> I think another tactic might well be to use the edged weapon
> to remove fingers.
I think that the finger issue had been convincingly illustrated in "Robin
Hood,
man in tights" (my ultimate authority on the issue of the stick fighting).
Remember
a duel between Robin and Little John? It was painful even to watch them....
:-)
alex milman
> One needs to keep in mind that Scott weighs 119 pounds, soaking wet and
> is about 5 feet 2 inches tall ---- when weighing and considering his
> personal anecdotal evidence of this sort.
Well, Spencer, IMHO, this can be to his advantage: it should be difficult to
hit
such a small target. :-)
alex milman
> alex milman wrote:
>
> The following tirade is quite unnecessary although humorous.
Glad that you recognized my major intention. :-)
>
>
> Which brings a rather obvious question why
> > Brits
> > bothered with building all these ironworks? It's probably safe to assume
> > that these
> > miracles had been limited only to the certain parts of England and to
the
> > Japanese-run
> > schools of the martial arts: the rest of the mankind (including most of
> > England and Japan) was
> > stupid enough to spend enormous efforts and money to produce first
bronze
> > and than iron weapons.
> > It's also quite obvious that the numerous peasant revolts had been
crushed
> > simply because these
> > peasants had been too stupid to use staffs and clubs: they would defeat
> > their armoured opponents at no
> > time. The only unresolved question is how Yukatan Indians did not kill
all
> > Spaniards at the 1st encounter:
> > they definitely had clubs vs swords. Perhaps they had been too stupid to
> > make their wooden
> > weapons 6 feet long. :-)
>
> Perhaps if the "Yukatan Indians" (Incas? Mayans?)
Incas definitely can't be described as "Yukatan Indians" because they lived
in Peru.
Some of the ribes of Yukatan had Maya ancestry. Not sure if this was true
for
Aztecs and Tlashkala.
>had
> realized the Spaniards were so efficient at killing lightly
> armed warriors intent on capturing instead of killing their
> opponents, events might have ended differently.
As a matter of fact, the indians whom Spaniards met initially, were not so
bent on a
capturing (they took some prisoners but this was not their goal) and even
tried to
maintain a distance and use their bows and arrows. They had been reasonably
successful against one of the earlier expeditions (in with B.Dias
participated) and
tried to use the same tactics against Cortes. Probably their bows were not
efficient
because (judging by Dias) Spaniards usually had been able to come close
enough
to use their swords. These tribes, AFAIK, were neither Aztec nor Tlashkala
but they
were reasonably numerous.
>Thousands of
> heavily armed warriors might have dealt with a few hundred
> Spaniards in short order.
Aztecs definitely had big numbers of the heavily armed soldiers (judging by
their
frescoes) and, judging by what had been published on shm while ago, they
were not
_exclusively_ bent on taking the prisoners. BTW, to take the prisoner you
don't have
to grab him with your bare hands. IMHO, it's much more productive to kick
him
few times on some sensitive parts of anatomy and _then_ grab him. Still,
Spaniards,
IIRC, had been able to score some successes before Tlaskalans joined them
and confused
a whole picture.
As for the thousands vs few hundred, there can be an extra factor. You may
notice that
in the encounters between the "regular" troops and numerous but
ill-disciplined opponents
the regulras often won regardless the terrible odds even with the more or
less equal weapons
and against the bellicose opponents. Can't tell how disciplined had been
Aztecs and what
was their tactics but I would not discount this factor.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
afr...@aol.com (Afropea) wrote:
> Yes. I like him a lot. I used to be very interested in Japanese
> film in general.
Unfortunately Japanese combat films have little to do with any actual
combat.
Speaking generally in the medieval period a sword was a status symbol
which was actually included in sumptary laws. With the growth of
armour use a sword got less effective. This can be seen by the growth
of special types like the estoc which was useless for anything but
thrusting. The preferred weapons for all infantry troops was something
with a longer reach. Either a spear, pike or some variant on the
halberd and bill. Most of the shorter pole arms had a back hook to
dismount horsemen. For cavalry the primary weapon tended to be the
lance with a concussion weapon like a mace or a war hammer as back up.
Concussion weapons had the advantage that even if the armour was not
penetrated the impact could be transmitted through the armour.
The sword came back as a weapon in warfare when the use of armour
ceased. Of course none of this applies to civilian life.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Afropea
> Unfortunately Japanese combat films have little to do with any actual
>combat.
I think people need to consider films as they do
any other art form. The purpose of portraying anything, from clothes to
fighting, may not be
for accurate representation. It may be purely
symbolic or aesthetic. The only history film fights
can really be relied upon to represent is the
history of fight choreography!
Eve
William Black
Adam Phillips <phi...@tdaustralia.com.au> wrote in message
news:YYvD6.4492$EQ3.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> William,
>
> Perhaps you are only discussing European or English military history here?
> There are countless examples of Samurai using single (katana) and two
handed
> (dai-katana) swords in battle.
>
> The sword was not only the primary weapon it was often the only weapon
> carried.
> (They had various daggers etc. but I think they are regarded as tools not
> weapons
> in this dicussion).
Well Samurai were originally horse archers, it's where that rather strange
asymmetrical bow comes from. And there is a huge range of Japanese staff
weapons.
And later they became musketeers.
Sword in 'medieval' (yes, I know I know) Japan are very much a badge of
rank, far more so than in England where any free man could wear one at any
time(with one single exception)
William Black
And those little ones tend to be fast as well...
alex milman
>
> Adam Phillips <phi...@tdaustralia.com.au> wrote in message
> news:YYvD6.4492$EQ3.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> > William,
> >
> > Perhaps you are only discussing European or English military history
here?
> > There are countless examples of Samurai using single (katana) and two
> handed
> > (dai-katana) swords in battle.
> >
> > The sword was not only the primary weapon it was often the only weapon
> > carried.
> > (They had various daggers etc. but I think they are regarded as tools
not
> > weapons
> > in this dicussion).
>
> Well Samurai were originally horse archers, it's where that rather
strange
> asymmetrical bow comes from. And there is a huge range of Japanese staff
> weapons.
>
Judging by the Japanese paintings, these cavalrymen often had been armed
with both
bow and a polearm (and sword). Or with one of two.
> And later they became musketeers.
IIRC, Japanese (for quite a while) had been using mostly (or only) the
matchlocks so
they became arquebusieres. :-)
BTW, while the firearms became a mass infantry weapon, are you sure that
they became
a "noble" weapon and not one predominantly used by the ordinary soldiers? In
Europe
only the pistols had been "suitable" for the officers with exceptions here
and there like
French King's musketers (vs. "ordinary" musketeers)
Looks like the pistols did not became as popular in Japan as in Europe (when
they helped to create
a brand new type of a cavalry, reitars, and made gendarmes practically
obsolete). I remember one
painting showing cavalrymen with the pistols but were they widely used?
>
> Sword in 'medieval' (yes, I know I know) Japan are very much a badge of
> rank, far more so than in England where any free man could wear one at
any
> time(with one single exception)
This would probably be true for the most of Europe, esp. close to XVII -
XVIII century: people could
openly wear the weapons while not being the nobility. Probably existence of
a big class of the mercenaries
was one of the factors. Or the fact that in most cases society was not as
stratified as in Japan.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
A friend of my mother's was a woman roughly 5'2" and probably nothing
over 119 lbs who could string a 65 lb recurve.
If she had put her energy into learning staff techniques rather than
archery I (at 6'3" and 190 lbs) would not have had any pressing desire
to have met her in a serious dual.
Robert
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
According to Silver writing in the early 1600s a "short staff" for a 6 foot
person is about 8 foot long and wielded from the end not in the middle,
giving one 5-6 foot of weapon to work with.
There is a manual from the early 1300s that shows young men working with,
among other weapons, a staff. IIRC the one image that I have seen (and I
dearly wish I could see any others ...) shows a technique that looks like
it may be a transition between two different holds... it was neither
clearly at half-staff nor at the end. IIRC the staff was taller than
the wielder but not quite so much more so as Silver describes.
"IIRC" because I haven't looked at the picture for some time.
A spear is a staff with a stabbing implement on the end of it.
In a group any staff attacks would be more useful with a spear.
The only disadvantage a spear has that I am aware of is that you can't
switch ends.
If you can get into position to use it a "sweep" can give you a rather
serious advantage over your opponant :-).
A number of medieval battles were fought on foot not on horseback.
The Illustrated Old Testament from the mid-1200s showed a lot of
sword work.
I have played catch as catch can with multiple on one, I am not
so sure that a pair working against one and both trained in the
circumstance would be such a shoe in for the pair.
Robert Morphis
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>1. No, as "force" is squared by double speed and only doubled by double
>weight, thinness (= more speed) = force.
energy is squared, momentum is not and both have to be taken into account
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>Swetnam says it should be useable as a walking staff so it
>shouldn't be too heavy.
Does he give a size?
>The problem with fighting with them today is that,
>unlike blunted swords, they are quite as dangerous as their prototypes.
Make them like they make some practice swords, out of multiple pieces of
bamboo.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>Swetnam says it should be useable as a walking staff so it
>>shouldn't be too heavy.
>
>Does he give a size?
Ah, found it on the web:
http://home.pacbell.net/ricl/swetnam.htm
I commend the low guard best, for that it serveth with the
Quarter-staffe of seven or eight foot, or for the Long-staffe of
twelve foote, and for the Pike of eighteene foote,
Bryn Fraser
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu writes
I can visualise a severe risk of staff envy arising here, or not...
Mine are only six feet...
Paul J. Gans
I think Robert dropped a word. Energy varies as the square of
the speed; momentum is directly proportional to it. And as he
says, both have to be taken into account.
---- Paul J. Gans
Julian Richards
This whole thread has reminded me of the BBC "Ivanhoe" when a
Norman is sent to kill the Jewish man with a sword. Ivanhoe is there
in disguise and with his quarterstaff, he sees off the villain.
Having said that, a good sword was worth a fortune and a quarterstaff?
Well they grew on trees.
--
Julian Richards
"Cultures that wilfully anaesthetise themselves to the past, will
infantilise themselves. To have no sense of your parents, and your
grandparents, and of the pleasures and pains of actually understanding
your antiquity, is to be completely robbed of any freedom to shape
your posterity" Cicero
Helen
Read pages 22-29 of Samurai Warfare by Dr Stephen Turnbull Arms and Armour
Press A Cassell Imprint 125 The Strand London First Published 1996 This
paperback edition 1997 ISBN 1-85409-432-7
Helen
Adam Phillips <phi...@tdaustralia.com.au> wrote in message
news:YYvD6.4492$EQ3.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> William,
>
> Perhaps you are only discussing European or English military history here?
> There are countless examples of Samurai using single (katana) and two
handed
> (dai-katana) swords in battle.
>
> The sword was not only the primary weapon it was often the only weapon
> carried.
> (They had various daggers etc. but I think they are regarded as tools not
> weapons
> in this dicussion).
> [snipped]
Woodcrafter
middle ages and just count how many swords were in use on the battlefield.
You will be counting for a while. Then look at how many other 'short'
weapons were employed.
Woodcrafter
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bfhb2$evu$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
>
> Tron Furu <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
> news:BiCC6.7986$R6.1...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
> >
> > alex milman skrev i meldingen <9beoan$7le$1...@news.gte.com>...
> > >
> > >"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:9begp7$hns$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>
> > Again a question of circumstance. Battlefield weapons are generally long
> > range weapons. But not all fighting is on the battlefield. A 6 foot
staff
> is
> > rather useless for short range work (and can therefore not be the ONLY
> > weapon unless you can guarantee that you will always win with it), and a
> > club makes no elegant accessory to evening dress.
> >
> Neither swords nor quarterstaffs were ever battlefield primary weapons.
>
> Both are civil weapons of self defence rather than military tools.
Julian Richards
> I suggest you look at some illustrations and illuminations drawn during the
> middle ages and just count how many swords were in use on the battlefield.
> You will be counting for a while. Then look at how many other 'short'
> weapons were employed.
The point is that whilst held in great esteem in all cultures, the
sword tended to be used (in great numbers) as a secondary weapon.
For the Europeans, the lance/spear was the main weapon, in oriental
cultures, it was the bow.
Paul J. Gans
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:41:39 GMT, Woodcrafter said,
>> I suggest you look at some illustrations and illuminations drawn during the
>> middle ages and just count how many swords were in use on the battlefield.
>> You will be counting for a while. Then look at how many other 'short'
>> weapons were employed.
> The point is that whilst held in great esteem in all cultures, the
> sword tended to be used (in great numbers) as a secondary weapon.
> For the Europeans, the lance/spear was the main weapon, in oriental
> cultures, it was the bow.
As many keep saying, it depends on the situation. I'd not
really want to try to use an 18 foot pike inside a typical
room in a typical house in a typical medieval town. Heck,
I'd not try to use one in a room in a typical New York
apartment today.
I'd likely not want to try to use one out on some medieval
streets. Some were narrower than 18 feet.
----- Paul J. Gans
alex milman
<mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:9bptt3$evl$3...@husk.cso.niu.edu...
>
> >1. No, as "force" is squared by double speed and only doubled by double
> >weight, thinness (= more speed) = force.
>
> energy is squared, momentum is not and both have to be taken into account
It's probably does not make sense to discuss this issue because the author
acknowledged that
he has no clue about the formula. :-)
alex milman
> Julian Richards <julian-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:41:39 GMT, Woodcrafter said,
>
> >> I suggest you look at some illustrations and illuminations drawn during
the
> >> middle ages and just count how many swords were in use on the
battlefield.
> >> You will be counting for a while. Then look at how many other 'short'
> >> weapons were employed.
>
> > The point is that whilst held in great esteem in all cultures, the
> > sword tended to be used (in great numbers) as a secondary weapon.
> > For the Europeans, the lance/spear was the main weapon, in oriental
> > cultures, it was the bow.
>
> As many keep saying, it depends on the situation. I'd not
> really want to try to use an 18 foot pike inside a typical
> room in a typical house in a typical medieval town.
It depends on the type of usage. It could be very useful as a firewood
(OTOH,
I'd suspect that you would have to cut it to pieces _outside_ the house)
> Heck,
> I'd not try to use one in a room in a typical New York
> apartment today.
>
> I'd likely not want to try to use one out on some medieval
> streets. Some were narrower than 18 feet.
Well, it would be useful if you are moving along the street (instead of
accross)
but you still may have some problems at the corners. :-)
BTW, IIRC, 18' long specimens appeared closer to Renaissance times (OTOH,
I suspect that 9'-12' long spear still will be rather inconvenient weapon
for a bar fight).
David C. Pugh
alex milman <am...@gte.com> wrote in message news:9c14t8$f9
(...)
> BTW, IIRC, 18' long specimens appeared closer to Renaissance times
(OTOH,
> I suspect that 9'-12' long spear still will be rather inconvenient
weapon
> for a bar fight).
But a longsword would also be a bit inconvenient, don't you think?
I've never been in a bar fight, but something mentioned by Mary G., to
wit a "bollock dagger", sounds useful. (Almost everything that makes
me go "Eeeewww" I read about in Mary.....)
David
alex milman
"Julian Richards" <julian-...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3AE36200.MD-1.4....@ntlworld.com...
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:41:39 GMT, Woodcrafter said,
>
> > I suggest you look at some illustrations and illuminations drawn during
the
> > middle ages and just count how many swords were in use on the
battlefield.
> > You will be counting for a while. Then look at how many other 'short'
> > weapons were employed.
>
> The point is that whilst held in great esteem in all cultures, the
> sword tended to be used (in great numbers) as a secondary weapon.
> For the Europeans, the lance/spear was the main weapon, in oriental
> cultures, it was the bow.
>
Probably it would make sense to define what is the "primary" weapon before
staring this discussion. Is it "mostly used" or "the first used"?
Then, it probably makes sense to define "Europeans":
1. There were numerous Europeans for whom bow was a "primary" weapon: last
time I checked, the steppes to the North of the Black Sea and in the Volga
area
were in Europe, which means that Petchenegs, Polovtsy, and Tatars had been
europeans, while their primary weapon was .... (OTOH, AFAIK, some other
"orientals",
who lived in the same area, like Khazars and Alans, had a heavy cavalry).
2. Christian Europeans (as well as everybody else) were not socially
uniform and for the
different types of soldiers "primary" weapons could be different. Knight's
lance definitely
was the 1st weapon he used but it could be easily broken and useless when
fighting in the
close quarters, which means that for the definition of the
"primary"/"secondary" you have to
have some valid statistics about percentage of the different types of
fighting for an "average"
knight. As for the infantry, depending on nation and period, it could be a
bow (English archers,
Janissares and probably others), a spear (short or long), or a halberd.
As for the "orientals", were the fighting practices of Persia, Central Asia,
India, China and Japan
the same? If not, it probably does not make too much sense to put all of
them in the same
sweeping category. BTW, was a bow or a polearm a "primary" weapon of Chinese
infantry?
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>Julian Richards <julian-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> I suggest you look at some illustrations and illuminations drawn during the
>>> middle ages and just count how many swords were in use on the battlefield.
>>> You will be counting for a while. Then look at how many other 'short'
>>> weapons were employed.
>
>> The point is that whilst held in great esteem in all cultures, the
>> sword tended to be used (in great numbers) as a secondary weapon.
>> For the Europeans, the lance/spear was the main weapon, in oriental
>> cultures, it was the bow.
Do we know what they were using at A***c****? It certainly wasn't
lances but I don't recall if the non-archers were using spears or
swords or if we know. As I recall, at least some of them were using
daggers (the Welsh IIRC).
Certainly the majority of the English were using bows as their primary
weapons.
>As many keep saying, it depends on the situation.
I very much agree with this however I can't resist commenting...
>I'd not
>really want to try to use an 18 foot pike inside a typical
>room in a typical house in a typical medieval town. Heck,
>I'd not try to use one in a room in a typical New York
>apartment today.
Talked to a guy in the SCA who was challenged to a friendly dual
in an apartment, 8 ft. spear against a sword, spear won, no contest.
I have no idea what the relative skill levels were.
>I'd likely not want to try to use one out on some medieval
>streets. Some were narrower than 18 feet.
All the better for a pike block (assuming the second stories didn't
over hang too much for a reversal to deal with a rear attack).
But no, I certainly would not want to use a pike one on one in such
a situation.
> ----- Paul J. Gans
Robert
David Debono
Bollock dagger so named because of the shape of the hilt (and the
tendancy to wear it close to the ...... etc) is a short fighting
dagger and, yes it would be more useful (as I understand these things
*smile*) in a bar fight.
Take care
David D.
The Mediaeval Combat Society
The Historical Reenactment Web Site
http://www.montacute.net/histrenact/welcome.htm
alex milman
"David C. Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
news:3KUE6.1613$gX3....@news3.oke.nextra.no...
>
> alex milman <am...@gte.com> wrote in message news:9c14t8$f9
>
> (...)
> > BTW, IIRC, 18' long specimens appeared closer to Renaissance times
> (OTOH,
> > I suspect that 9'-12' long spear still will be rather inconvenient
> weapon
> > for a bar fight).
>
> But a longsword would also be a bit inconvenient, don't you think?
I'd think so. Of course, I expect that some graduate of a martial arts
school
will explain that it's a typical misconception. :-)
> I've never been in a bar fight, but something mentioned by Mary G., to
> wit a "bollock dagger", sounds useful. (Almost everything that makes
> me go "Eeeewww" I read about in Mary.....)
IMHO, she was/is too bloodthirsty to be a reliable source of information.
:-)
But (this is a purely amateurish assumption), I'd assume that something
short and
heavy would be preferable: an axe with a short handle, a heavy mug, a
leather belt
(preferably, with a lot of metall on it), etc. In other words, the weapons
which will
do a lot of harm regardless of how exactly they land on opponent's head (or
whatever).
Second to this, probably some reasonably short blade (from dagger to sabre).
Based on the literary sources (except Alexander Dumas novels, where there is
always plenty of
space and everybody uses their rapiers and even has enough time to exchange
some witticisms),
I'd say that a belt with the baginet on it (late XIX and early XX century)
and the pistol butts
(mid XVII) were among mentioned as very efficient ones.
OTOH, I can name at least one (literary) source where two-handed sword had
been used in the
bar fight which did not happened. From the observer's point of view "Baron
was magnificient.
He strongly reminded a heavy helicopter with a working propeller".
Unfortunately for them,
baron's opponents (being typical medievals) never saw a heavy (or any)
helicopter and had been
too intimidated to fight. :-)
Paul J. Gans
Agreed. So we have concluded that weapons are like tools.
One chooses the right one for a given situation. Of course,
if all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails.
And if all you have is a stout staff...
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> David
The dagger seems to be the closest one can come to the all-purpose
useful medieval weapon-utensil. Everybody carried one, including
ladies. Knives were not supplied at the dinner table.
---- Paul J. Gans
David Debono
Of course, However I have several daggers of differing sizes for
differing reasons including an eating knife made exactly for the
purpose and not for any other. The examples being remade by historical
traders from research are far smaller than your average multipurpose
dagger being about 4-6 inches long in total and with a shaped single
sided blade on the end.
There was considerable ettiquet in eating and, to my knowledge, very
little of the "stabbing chewing and throwing to the dogs" kind of
scenes that people have come to expect of the period.
David Debono
Or one makes do with what one has at the time. All weapons have merits
and disadvantages, for example the usage of a spear would be very
differerent for a quarter-staff or a billhook.
I have not practiced enough with quarter-staff to comment on ability
against Sword although I have done the reverse. Also I tend to be
against spears and billhooks having never really used either in anger
(as it were). However I have never seen anyone using a quarter-staff
much longer that seven feet or so and this also applies to the other
two. Later periods had longer weaponry (ECW and the like) but are we
talking about that here?
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>>alex milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>>> BTW, IIRC, 18' long specimens appeared closer to Renaissance times (OTOH,
>>> I suspect that 9'-12' long spear still will be rather inconvenient weapon
>>> for a bar fight).
[]
>(as it were). However I have never seen anyone using a quarter-staff
>much longer that seven feet or so and this also applies to the other
>two. Later periods had longer weaponry (ECW and the like) but are we
>talking about that here?
The only hard data I have seen is from early 1600s when Silver calls
an 8 ft staff a "short staff".
For what it is worth at this time the long rapiers (4 ft +) were
going out of style.
Robert Morphis
David J. Starr
(dagger) and the single edged utility knife (what we would call a
hunting knife)? For cutting up food, vegetables, meat, skinning game,
cleaning fish, carving wood, all those "jack knife" things, you want a
single edged knife so you can push the blade with your fingers without
getting cut. For fighting, a double edged knife is nicer. You can cut
your opponent with paying great attention to just which way you are
holding the blade. Certainly everyone carried some kind of knife. But
was there a social distinction between types of knife, similar to the
modern distinction between a switchblade and a swiss army knife?
David Starr
David Starr
David Debono
<david...@analog.com> wrote:
> Was there a distinction made between a double edged fighting knife
>(dagger) and the single edged utility knife (what we would call a
>hunting knife)? For cutting up food, vegetables, meat, skinning game,
>cleaning fish, carving wood, all those "jack knife" things, you want a
>single edged knife so you can push the blade with your fingers without
>getting cut. For fighting, a double edged knife is nicer. You can cut
>your opponent with paying great attention to just which way you are
>holding the blade. Certainly everyone carried some kind of knife. But
>was there a social distinction between types of knife, similar to the
>modern distinction between a switchblade and a swiss army knife?
>
>David Starr
>
David,, I don't know if it was certain that everyone carried some kind
of dagger or knife at all. Knives of varing lengths were used by
people, but we have to be careful what we class as people here. Are we
talking Nobles, Trades or just your common pleb? Also what period are
we actually talking? Pre conquest is very different from, say, the
period covered by I.33 or Talhoffer or Silver.
It is assumed that a dagger would be part of fighting attire (if that
is the correct way of describing it). There are references to
Misericords (sp?) carried by armoured knights to be used to dispatch
them if they were fatally wounded but I would think this is a bit
fancyfull as the sole reason for the weapon. A good diamond edge knife
would be useful due to the penetrating point if nothing else. However
it would not be that good for general purpose use and certainly
difficult to eat with, for example, or to skin hides!
David Debono
Yep... seven foot or so? But although Silver *is* later my thoughts
would be that this is about right for the sort of quarter-staff
fighting that we are talking about?
David J. Starr
most miserable poor to have one, for eating with if nothing else. But I
would expect the commoners to carry a style of knife that looks like a
tool, rather than a weapon.
A 4 inch single edged knife without a guard is a kitchen knife.
Something a foot and a half long, double edged, cross hilted, with a
needle point isn't for cutting bread or paring apples. Then there are
all sorts of knives in between these two extremes, which can serve
double duty, table knife or weapon. I was wondering if there were
various styles of knife, some clearly tools and some clearly weapons or
if everyone carried a general purpose sort of knife that could cut up
cheese or slit a throat at need.
David Starr