What the hell are they talking about? The Jian CAN cut and slash like any other sword. There were also two handed variants with broader blades like their European counterparts. And the ancient Chinese were also pretty good metallurgist so these were not some poorly made iron bars either.
that part in bold is an understatement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_Goujian). the sword in the link blew my brains out the first time I saw it. And it's hardly an isolated example.
and that was in Bronze: the steel examples blow my mind even more.
Worst part is cutting something doesn't even need a sharp edge.
Worst part is cutting something doesn't even need a sharp edge.
Shane, you can maybe move the talk of swords to another topic?
Weeeeelp
you lost me there.
@ skm1091: thanks!
that part in bold is an understatement. the sword in the link blew my brains out the first time I saw it. And it's hardly an isolated example.
and that was in Bronze: the steel examples blow my mind even more.
you lost me there.
@ skm1091: thanks!
You hear a lot about japan and Western Europe but you rarely see stuff on Ancient China.
And usually what you hear about ancient china is crap by biased martial artist, who are drunk on the arts own "greatness"
your welcome
Going back to Chinese, what do you guys think of this?
You hear a lot about japan and Western Europe but you rarely see stuff on Ancient China.
I believe you are talking about the sword of Gou Jian, the ruler of the state of Yue during the warring states period(475-221 B.C)
seen both--very good material, and it shows how ingenious the Chinese can get--not just with the civilian material. what amazes me is that the Chinese have come up with an equally effective, yet different armor style, than what Europeans and middle easterners used. Specifically, the latter two worked with metal from the get-go, and evolved mail armor as the predominant form of protection throughout much of the last 2,000 years. the Chinese worked with leather and wood initially, only later switching to metal, and they went with lamellar armor for the last 2,000 years--much more consistently than the latter two did with mail.
Lol. Finding good stuff is hard isn't?
Anywhere near as embellished as the Japanese? I don't think so.
They don't seem talk about Ancient Chinese (Zhao, Warring States Qin, Han etc). They seem to talk more about Shaolin Kung Fu and Wushu these don't come until later. Some argue that Shaolin is where Chinese fighting arts originated, which is absolute bullshit because there are accounts that go back even further.
They don't really talk much about weapons either.
There is embellishment in every culture that has experienced war I suppose. Remember the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae? Herodotus was the one who wrote about this and this guy is said to be wildly inaccurate with his numbers. It is hard to believe that any nation at that time could even field and maintain an army that huge.
BTW what you think of the videos?
They're good. I wish that there were something about the martial techniques.
Then, again. I always have a hard time finding stuff about how the Japanese really fought.
Usually, all I find is japanphilia.
Realistic stuff about Europe though I can easily find for some reason.
For martial techniques, I think it is a safe bet to say that they would learn simple/the most effective moves such as basic kicks, punches grapples, chokes etc. Because if you try a fancy flashy kick in air like a Shaolin monk in a real battle. Most likely you would be chopped to pieces. Heh heh
BTW do you think the Chinese could have made good plate armor? I always wondered since these guys were really good metallurgists, why did they never make any.
I meant in weapon usage, like the katana was kinda used in lateral cuts. while the European longsword was used in a kind of wagon wheel movement.
As with the Plate armor, Maybe? Either the Chinese never thought of it, the climate wasn't good for it, they never encountered the stuff,
The Europeans encountered a form from the Romans, who encountered it from the Greeks or they government so regulated the army that nobody could experiment with it. The Chinese were a very regular army while the European armies, most soldiers brought their own stuff.
I thought most of Europe had standardized equipment during the late medieval period.
Lamellar is actually pretty strong especially ones made from steel. China also had paper armor, which was also very strong. (See video bellow)
What always puzzled me is that with such advance metallurgy they never made plate armor.
The videos I posted earlier. The playlist about the armor On the first video I think they missed a few things. The armors that the terracotta soldiers wore from about 5:30 to the end on the first video. I read that some of them were made from bronze and iron. (See article bellow)
http://www.history-of-armor.com/ChineseArmor.html
I thought most of Europe had standardized equipment during the late medieval period.
@ R.E.H.W.R.: I doubt weather was a factor: iron armor in general rusts in the humid climate of southern china easily--including the iron versions of the lamellar and scale armors popular in the region.
besides, judging from surviving artifacts, they had the technology to at least retard rusting. And they could make large sheets of high quality material, so I doubt the thought didn't cross their minds
Again that was a "maybe" answer.
History, as much I love history, is a bitch to find to real answers.
It and Paleontology: but that's what makes it fun for me and you (I presume): there is no end to the questions, mysteries to solve or at least take a stab at.
Grammar dude!
You and I.
I wish I had a Pirillo video for this.
Lol. ;D
Again that was a "maybe" answer.
History, as much I love history, is a bitch to find to real answers.
Grammar dude!
You and I.
No, objective case. "Me" is correct.
Whoops.
Proof you should always listen to your mother reading over your shoulder.
Not bad huh?
Your opinions?
Mike Loades and John Clements always improve a hostory documentary.
Better than than a lot of on the history channel that's for sure.
The history channel has "documentaries"?
Thought is all was reality shows.
They use to have some documentaries but that was a long time ago. I haven't watched anything recent but I have heard some bad stuff. I did like some of their firearms documentaries, but they really don't show stuff like this anymore. Here is an example of one of those firearms documentaries.
I was being sarcastic!
They are good. Those maces are defiantly not made for really heavy duty armor like plate.
Chinese usually had scale, lamellar, or coat of plates.
I'm pretty sure they could have come up with something if they encountered European plate armor seeing how diverse their weapons were.
Probably, I don't think it would help. Then, again I'm biased.
Not sure what they could have done against the European lance.
They are good. Those maces are defiantly not made for really heavy duty armor like plate.
A lance? I'm pretty sure that they find ways to counter it. they could build traps, dig pits that horses could fall into or make a lance of their own. A lance is basically a thick giant spear after all.
I don't know. That giant hammer looks like it can do some damage. Even if it does not kill it can defiantly maim to the point of being taken out of battle.
Problem is that, that hammer can be heavy, but its reach is pretty short compared to a lance, and most knights carried kite shaped shields, that protected both men and the horse.
Here's the difference.
(http://www.seiyaku.com/images/puzzle/mystery07/kite-shield-large.jpg)
(http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/kite_shield.jpg)
One of the image is not showing up.Which one? I can see them both.
I think I have seen this shield before. This was also used by the Normans and the Saxons, am I correct?
Which one? I can see them both.
Its were it was first used in cavalry.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
the essay is right: depends on a lot of variables.
And frankly now, the only way the question would be any more pointless was if it's a knight v. a faris....
by a faris do you mean Furusiyya?
they're related: Furusiyya was and is the art of being a knight (or in Arabic, a "faris"). It's kind of equivalent to chivalry, but is understood to refer to more than just the code.
would like to see a doc. about it.
good luck with that....I have looked for years, and found none. some scattering of stuff courtesy of Terry Jones (the Monty Python one). most of it is in book form: the more famous (to the west), is the Persian version, which is the earlier of the two--the ones who fought the Romans, and later their Byzantine successors: the Persians called them Savaran or something.
Anyone know any other medieval fighting manuals? I know there is Talhoffer's fighting techniques, but that's all I know.
Here you go.
http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm
Something I've never understood. Why is it that Europe is the only part of the world who stuck with the double edged straight sword?
Just about every nation I've studied usually goes with a curved blade.
Don't you guys have the Falchion? I guess they felt they did not need to change since the straight sword served them so well since the time of the celts and romans.
Something I've never understood. Why is it that Europe is the only part of the world who stuck with the double edged straight sword?
Just about every nation I've studied usually goes with a curved blade.
why did it replace the straight sword? style I guess. I'm told it may be better at cutting, but how much so, I dunno, if at all.
Not necessarily. A blunt bastard sword can cut a tatami mat just as well as a curved sword.
well, yeah, but I didn't say otherwise. I simply mentioned that people told me that it is better, but reiterated that I don't know if it is true. :shrug:
I would think with a curved sword you'd get more of a sliding motion when you swung it, aiding in the cut.
More like a draw cut. As you hit the target, you would draw through.
I was just thinking about how much easier it is to cut something (a steak, butter, etc.) by sliding the knife back and forth than pushing it. Not that I have any expertise here, but it seems to me that swinging a straight sword is more like pushing the knife in, where the curved blade would make more of a sliding cut.
UGH!
eh I've seen worse.
Still bad.
thought I'd never see this again: While it isn't from the far east, it is about another unrecognized or forgotten style of martial arts--namely near eastern ones:
entreri.egloos.com/5075869 (http://entreri.egloos.com/5075869)
it's a manual for middle eastern knights (or fursan)--specifically the mamlukes (being from the 15th016th century): foot combat, horse combat, even wrestling on horseback, are all included in this partial scan of the manual. I'm translating it in my spare time (being medieval Arabic, the style is a bit weird, and spelling/handwriting atrocious).
EDIT: here's what the fifth plate says (four men, all with maces (or rather, sticks)):
"section of the how to of fencing with the mace on the ground"Spoiler (click to show/hide)
*possibly referring to the giving of blows.
here another plate (two men grappling on horseback):
"Section of fighting/countering on horseback with the hands"Spoiler (click to show/hide)
here's a topic not discussed regularly: European siege weapons:
Can someone explain why the fingers of the off hand are touching the sword hand?
Even I have no clue :shrug:
Just seems like a big HIT THIS ARM! sign to me.
I guess these are more theatrical sword arts not military arts.
hard to say: a lot of the fancier ones are justritualized versions of original practical styles. And in fact most of the moves kinda match what I've seen in Europe and the Near east.
the one weird part though I'm not sure about. same with the part where he fish tails the sword: creepy stuff.
If i wanted to go into battle I probably want this whammer.
This would probably snap most swords in two.
If i wanted to go into battle I probably want this whammer.
This would probably snap most swords in two.
check it out guys
http://www.cracked.com/article_20634_6-things-movies-get-wrong-about-swords-an-inside-look.html
If not disused already. :P
God, I remember believing all that crap!
we were all young and stupid once :PFor the sake of fairness their arguments in #2 sound like "no, we've never had a heavier than air flying machine, we'll never discover/invert one." Short of being all knowing, that's a rather blanket statement of them, no?
(I used to think number's 3 and 2 were real. OK, I kinda think number two is still true XD)
For the sake of fairness their arguments in #2 sound like "no, we've never had a heavier than air flying machine, we'll never discover/invert one." Short of being all knowing, that's a rather blanket statement of them, no?
Just got this puppy of a sparring sword.
(http://www.superiorswords.com/uploads/66530/images/91728/pr9032.jpg)
and it is awesome.
Is the serious version of this intended as a slashing sword only, or is it also a thrusting sword?
The Filipinos imitated the Spanish version of Espada Y Daga and soon found the weaknesses working a way to make the offensive moves complicated so Spaniards could not counter it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110719194352.htm
Heavy Metal Hardens Battle: Body Armor Hindered Medieval Warriors
Ah, no. The reason the French lost at the Battle of Agincourt was that were forced to charge head on due to the landscape.
The same thing would have happened if they were unarmored.
Plus, it's generally easier to carry significant amounts of weight that are as evenly distributed as possible, as opposed to all in one thing like a backpack.
Plus, they used used museum armor instead of fitted armor.
A major reason plate armor was so expensive was because it had to be individually fitted by a specialist armorsmith. If you don't do that, and then train in how to properly USE the armor in combat, it's nearly worthless. Suits used as decoration might not even be real, practical armor in the first place, even if they look like it.
Well, that and its a lot of tempered steel. Lots of little pieces and rivets.
Question? How much was a coat of plates compared to full suit of plate?
What do you guys think of the talwar vs katana debate?
1. the video doesn't work. 2. It would be interesting to watch.
What do you guys think of the talwar vs katana debate?
hard to say. it depends on the skill of the user I guess, and the efficiency of the design: the more efficient, the easier it is to cut with, but skill can compensate. that's why that Clements guy cut that tatami in two with a blunt bastard sword.
Can you name some famous middle eastern swordsmen?
Ali ibn abi-talib comes to mind (he was the Prophet's cousin, fourth Caliph, and among the Shia, second only to Muhammad himself (first if you are a member of the ghulat)). he didn't set up schools, but he was known to be invincible in a duel--and he fought lots of those (for military reasons): his trademark weapon was a double pronged sword (which was straight edged: curved swords come with the Turks). Many Early Muslim celebrities were known to be skilled duelists as well: these were all for military purposes, the idea being to demoralize the enemy by killing their champions (for example at Yarmouk, the battle began with a series of duels). again, the sword was the weapon of choice.
makes me wish all modern armies started their battles by having the leaders of the respective armies/countries/forces fight duels to the death themselves...
were there ever martial arts schools in the middle east.
Of course there were (though whether in the European way of establishing schools is another matter: Government has always been more centralized in the region, so military training worked more like armies today), but the Problem is that most have been largely abandoned and/or forgotten: what use is a sword in an age when your enemy next door has cluster bombs and unmanned drones?
Ask Mad Jack Churchill. He always took a sword with him, and sometimes a longbow as well (and is credited with killing in battle with it). This is in WWII, mind you, so no cluster bombs (unless you counts the way bombing operated, which was rather worse), but there were unmanned drones, used by both sides.
yeah, the "Mad" part in his name should be a warning that he wasn't going to operate by normal rules :P
＞the greatsword have 2 hard edges but a soft center that can take the impact far easier than the katana.＞
Hard = Tough
Although this formula is half right, it is half wrong .
Glass is harder than steel. But, glass is weaker than steel.
The intensity of the material of a sword is decided by hardness and adhesive correlation. Moreover, the intensity of a blade is decided by correlation of hardness and pliability.
A tough sword cannot be made only from element of one of the two .
Therefore, both of Japanese blade and European blade had the hardest edge and other portions is soft in comparison.
In the case where the single edge blade sword and double edge blade sword which were made from the material of the same mass ,when the pressure is added to edge side , the single edge blade sword is stronger than double edge blade sword .
Therefore, this video is FAKE.
hard to say. it depends on the skill of the user I guess, and the efficiency of the design: the more efficient, the easier it is to cut with, but skill can compensate. that's why that Clements guy cut that tatami in two with a blunt bastard sword.
Do you know of any historical sources on how Composite recurve bows did in wet humid weather?
I'm getting some people saying that they will be less effective and people who say it won't affect them.
no explicit mentions, but I know of this:
people in India often swapped traditional composite bows for steel bows. Glues back then weren't waterproof (at least in the context of bows), and the materials were all organic, so in a very humid and rainy place (e.g. India), a bow would quickly fall apart. A steel bow didn't do that, and the technology did exist to retard rusting, so such a bow would be effective in India.
Steel bows eh? Those required a lot of strength to draw, am I right?
According to this article, the draw weight of this steel bow was 50 lbs.
http://www.atarn.org/letters/ltr_dec04.htm
Steel bows eh? Those required a lot of strength to draw, am I right?
if you built it like Europeans did, yes.
but the Indians wanted something that could be drawn by hand like a normal bow (simple or composite), and they could be pretty precise for their day in how to achieve it, though as evensgrey said, they couldn't be exact before the bessemer process.
people forget that India was host to some pretty extreme metallurgic skills for centuries: during the Gupta period for example, they made iron pillars, some of which still stand today, after almost 1500 years:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/QtubIronPillar.JPG)
in the Arab world in fact, the finest swords were not locally made (themselves of good quality), but imported from India or produced in Indian Style smithies in Oman and Yemen.
Incidentally, I can't locate the draw weight for the steel bow on that page. The 50 lb. draw weight on that page is for the composite bow.
if you built it like Europeans did, yes.
but the Indians wanted something that could be drawn by hand like a normal bow, so one thing you'll notice is that the steel bows are very thin front to back compared to normal examples--basically a long, sturdy sheet. besides, they had the means to get the right type of steel, though as evensgrey said it was not easy prior to the Bessemer process. (what the Indians did was likely to make the crucible steel, and then beat out or rub in the needed carbon content till they got what they wanted--in this case a low carbon steel that was very springy--like the Ulfbehrt swords).
people forget that India was host to some pretty extreme metallurgic skills for centuries: during the Gupta period for example, they made iron pillars, some of which still stand today, after almost 1500 years:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/QtubIronPillar.JPG)
What I find most impressive about that pillar is that it's still in obviously near-pristine condition (the detail looks quite crisp and clean in the image) despite 1500 years in what is obviously a rather moist climate (judging by the healthy-looking trees and grass in the background, showing no indications of chronic water stress. Is that the metal itself (which seems unlikely, as only stainless steel creates it's own protective coating, and that pillar surely isn't stainless), or is it some really good paint (and there were really good paints in that time, we just forget that in the west because we tend to only think of Europe, where technology went to hell after Rome fell apart)?
I ripped this from the wikipeda page.
"The pillar has attracted the attention of archaeologists and metallurgists and has been called "a testament to the skill of ancient Indian blacksmiths" because of its high resistance to corrosion.[1] The corrosion resistance results from an even layer of crystalline iron hydrogen phosphate forming on the high phosphorus content iron, which serves to protect it from the effects of the local Delhi climate"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_pillar_of_Delhi