True Combat Value of Wootz

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

We should also remember that Europeans were living in these areas too, not in such great numbers (hundreds) but for trade, left over from crusades and other battles etc. Perhaps they liked the blades of their homeland. Much in the same way people tend to buy things they are familiar with today (Husband still wants British sausages, tea, and baked beans, as though America does not have any!). I think owning something exotic too is always wanted. Do we have any number on how many sword fights were actually occuring in battles? During the different periods, were the swords primarily for horseman or infantry?
Ann

I can only talk on behalf the bedouin culture that Ive been studying closely. In most raids and battles, the lance was the primary weapon, but after the initial charge, whilst becoming a burden, a cavalier resorts to his sword. They werent to keen on firearms as those were mostly single shots, many of them being matchlocks too. The sword was the foremost weapon well into the 20th century. Thats why blades from all over the world, from india, persia, Britain, France, Germany, Hungary, Austria and perhaps many more lands, were pouring into the region, and it was a very profitable trade due to the never ending demand for blades.

Richard Burton, being an expert swordsman, seems to have noticed that none of the locals of arabia he'd witnessed were good swordsman, rather using the sword as some kind of stick, and evading cuts rather than parrying them. He also comments that none of them knows how to use the point. The exact same view is held by Wyman Bury.

[Lee]

Originally Posted by S.Al-Anizi

Richard Burton, being an expert swordsman, seems to have noticed that none of the locals of Arabia he'd witnessed were good swordsman, rather using the sword as some kind of stick, and evading cuts rather than parrying them...

My own experience with the vast majority of Victorian-age literature on swords is that it does not stand up very well by today's standards, being pretty much anecdotal and very deeply colored by societal prejudices. Perhaps some of our martial artists will disagree (and they are likely to know much better than me), but I suspect Burton was judging based upon the perspective of European fencing standards; not an applicable yardstick.

[Tim Simmons]

I have to agree with Lee. Burton had his pet "Johnny foreigners" but unlike him an Englishman only next to god, they were never as good. His comments on Africans that latter were to charge machine guns with spears. Are as if they were a miserable sniveling shower of cowards. I suspect Burton suffered from hairy hands. It made you go blind in the 19th century. oops

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

I have to agree with Lee. Burton had his pet "Johnny foreigners" but unlike him an Englishman only next to god, they were never as good. His comments on Africans that latter were to charge machine guns with spears. Are as if they were a miserable sniveling shower of cowards. I suspect Burton suffered from hairy hands. It made you go blind in the 19th century. oops

Sir Richard was an extraordinary man, and few people ever experienced his range of adventures, interests, daring exploits and ... controversies.
Yes, he was almost a caricature of a Victorian Englishman, and his accounts of the "natives" were often unfair, subjective, biased and prejudicial. On the other hand, being a famous fencer, he was well qualified to express his opinion on swordwielding techniques of Africans and Arabian Beduins. I would not be surprised if he engaged in mock fencing bouts with them to test his theories of comparative value of European vs. "Oriental" fencing. After all, there were few of his pet theories he did not put to practical test.
Just name me another man who had traveled to so many forbidden places, translated so many forbidden books and had so many passionate adherents and enemies!