saudi executioners sword

Lew · 12th June 2007, 08:04 PM

The right tool for the job these swords are not. The blades IMO are too narrow and too light to be effective. Not being able to cleanly sever the head is considered a botched job in many cultures causing the condemned more pain and suffering. I think this thread is also not a very pleasant one so this will be my last reply on this subject.

Lew

Steven C. · 19th June 2007, 11:53 AM

Hm, about the not fully-severing the head, that doesnt suprise me. I remember reading awhile back , that contrary to popular belief during samurai seppuku, the kaishakunin did NOT fully sever the head as a rule. The idea was to make a clean cut through but to stop, leaving a good strip of flesh. This was to make the ritual much more.. civilised I geuss you could say, seeing as how a head flying off across the room spraying blood everywhere is not pleasant. The beheading during seppuku is meant to be an act of mercy for an otherwise agonising death, NOT a display.

I'm fairly sure that for the same practical reasons, the same is done with the Saudi's, as our friend above has said he's seen in a video.

ariel · 19th June 2007, 02:38 PM

We are veering into morbid seas....
Just my 5 cents:
The quest for instantaneous and complete decapitation is centuries old.
Because even highly trained men could not always do the job right with an ax or a sword, did Mr. Guilloten invent his machine. It was advertised precisely from the humanistic point of view: no pain, instant death etc. Mr. Guilloten was himself beheaded by his invention later on, but his personal impression is yet to be published....

Bill · 19th June 2007, 04:31 PM

I agree this is a unplesant subject but I think there is value in how some swords did develope for this matter. The subject can be broken into 2 classes; ritualistic & definitive. Executions would be definitive. While some swords may have developed specifically for execution, I tend to think most must have had battlefield use as primary function. Both ritualistic & definitive would seek the same result. Either on the battle field or traveling to hostile territory to secure the trophy, it has to be assumed that development of some swords were to efficiently do this task. The mountain tribes of Luzon either developed the head axe or adapted it. I would agree with Cato that the Moro adapted the panabas (most likely a tool) for definitive reasons. Most other head-removal groups, must have relied on weapons they took to battle. While speculation, I think the Kris developing from the keris is a good example, especially if the primary battle weapon was blowgun or spear.

fenlander · 19th June 2007, 05:15 PM

[QUOTE=Bill]I agree this is a unplesant subject but I think there is value in how some swords did develope for this matter. QUOTE]

Exactly. People only find it disturbing because it still goes on today.
I was actually interested in the kind of metal used. It is a good way for me to understand metal types used in swords. For example i know that most "samurai" swords would be softer in the middle and harder on the edges therefore creating a hard edged sword that was not too brittle etc etc. Therefore I presume an executioners sword would be very brittle as a good edge would be the most important attribute. Sharpness I presume would be the most important priority as it would not be colliding with something as hard as an enemy shield or parrying sword etc etc. I think learning about how swords are designed and made for certain puroposes can teach the beginer like myself an awful lot about swords. Lets face it what percentage of swords were really designed to do anything nice to another human being ? yeah a few just for ceremonial purposes, but then again we just have ceremonial swords because swords represent power (power through the ability to take life). Yeah sure i don't want to see real executions no thanks (yuk) not my cup of tea but discussing how they (the swords) are made can lead to great learning.
So what steel would be the best then ? High carbon ? or what ? How are they made ? No one really answered that. If you were a sword smith and some rich shiek a few hundred years ago said make an executioners sword. Would that be different to a battle sword ? How would it be different etc etc. I think it is a decent academic question

And of great value to the beginer like myself.
Kind of like the physics question to students of physics. The teacher asked them how would they make a nuclear bomb. Nuclear bombs are far worse than executioners swords, but it was a useful way to teach the physics students about physics.
However I guess there is something in our memes that makes us more terrified and repulsed by swords than atomic bombs.

Montino Bourbon · 19th June 2007, 07:55 PM

Which is a very slanted blade, I would say that a panabas might be the most efficient.

Heavy, well-tempered blade. short cutting edge, abrupt slant; sounds very effective, if not the best in a fighting situation.

In some countries, practicing decapitation on live criminals was the norm for young warriors; the actual experience was believed to be vital (!). Other countries and ethnic groups used animals to get the feel.

Sort of like a round of golf; practice, anyone?

Just don't start enjoying it and lose your head over it. (Sorry, couldn't resist)

katana · 19th June 2007, 09:05 PM

I suppose the requirements of a 'good' be-heading sword would include a two handed hilt. A 'heavy' blade, carbon steel with a 'v' edge and 'clipped point' The sword's balance would need to be 'top heavy' to aid the downward stroke. Axes were the norm. in Britain's earlier history....and a sword, such as I described above, would have 'axe-like' qualities. The advantage over the axe is the fact that with an axe,the weight is 'concentrated' at one end and it would be easy not to strike cleanly

19th June 2007, 07:55 PM	#6
Montino Bourbon Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Santa Barbara, California Posts: 301	Judging from the guillotine... Which is a very slanted blade, I would say that a panabas might be the most efficient. Heavy, well-tempered blade. short cutting edge, abrupt slant; sounds very effective, if not the best in a fighting situation. In some countries, practicing decapitation on live criminals was the norm for young warriors; the actual experience was believed to be vital (!). Other countries and ethnic groups used animals to get the feel. Sort of like a round of golf; practice, anyone? Just don't start enjoying it and lose your head over it. (Sorry, couldn't resist)

12th June 2007, 08:04 PM	#1
Lew (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 3,191	The right tool for the job these swords are not. The blades IMO are too narrow and too light to be effective. Not being able to cleanly sever the head is considered a botched job in many cultures causing the condemned more pain and suffering. I think this thread is also not a very pleasant one so this will be my last reply on this subject. Lew

19th June 2007, 11:53 AM	#2
Steven C. Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Port Richey, Florida Posts: 20	Hm, about the not fully-severing the head, that doesnt suprise me. I remember reading awhile back , that contrary to popular belief during samurai seppuku, the kaishakunin did NOT fully sever the head as a rule. The idea was to make a clean cut through but to stop, leaving a good strip of flesh. This was to make the ritual much more.. civilised I geuss you could say, seeing as how a head flying off across the room spraying blood everywhere is not pleasant. The beheading during seppuku is meant to be an act of mercy for an otherwise agonising death, NOT a display. I'm fairly sure that for the same practical reasons, the same is done with the Saudi's, as our friend above has said he's seen in a video.

19th June 2007, 02:38 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	We are veering into morbid seas.... Just my 5 cents: The quest for instantaneous and complete decapitation is centuries old. Because even highly trained men could not always do the job right with an ax or a sword, did Mr. Guilloten invent his machine. It was advertised precisely from the humanistic point of view: no pain, instant death etc. Mr. Guilloten was himself beheaded by his invention later on, but his personal impression is yet to be published....

19th June 2007, 04:31 PM	#4
Bill Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Chicago area Posts: 327	I agree this is a unplesant subject but I think there is value in how some swords did develope for this matter. The subject can be broken into 2 classes; ritualistic & definitive. Executions would be definitive. While some swords may have developed specifically for execution, I tend to think most must have had battlefield use as primary function. Both ritualistic & definitive would seek the same result. Either on the battle field or traveling to hostile territory to secure the trophy, it has to be assumed that development of some swords were to efficiently do this task. The mountain tribes of Luzon either developed the head axe or adapted it. I would agree with Cato that the Moro adapted the panabas (most likely a tool) for definitive reasons. Most other head-removal groups, must have relied on weapons they took to battle. While speculation, I think the Kris developing from the keris is a good example, especially if the primary battle weapon was blowgun or spear.

19th June 2007, 05:15 PM	#5
fenlander Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 62	[QUOTE=Bill]I agree this is a unplesant subject but I think there is value in how some swords did develope for this matter. QUOTE] Exactly. People only find it disturbing because it still goes on today. I was actually interested in the kind of metal used. It is a good way for me to understand metal types used in swords. For example i know that most "samurai" swords would be softer in the middle and harder on the edges therefore creating a hard edged sword that was not too brittle etc etc. Therefore I presume an executioners sword would be very brittle as a good edge would be the most important attribute. Sharpness I presume would be the most important priority as it would not be colliding with something as hard as an enemy shield or parrying sword etc etc. I think learning about how swords are designed and made for certain puroposes can teach the beginer like myself an awful lot about swords. Lets face it what percentage of swords were really designed to do anything nice to another human being ? yeah a few just for ceremonial purposes, but then again we just have ceremonial swords because swords represent power (power through the ability to take life). Yeah sure i don't want to see real executions no thanks (yuk) not my cup of tea but discussing how they (the swords) are made can lead to great learning. So what steel would be the best then ? High carbon ? or what ? How are they made ? No one really answered that. If you were a sword smith and some rich shiek a few hundred years ago said make an executioners sword. Would that be different to a battle sword ? How would it be different etc etc. I think it is a decent academic question And of great value to the beginer like myself. Kind of like the physics question to students of physics. The teacher asked them how would they make a nuclear bomb. Nuclear bombs are far worse than executioners swords, but it was a useful way to teach the physics students about physics. However I guess there is something in our memes that makes us more terrified and repulsed by swords than atomic bombs.

19th June 2007, 09:05 PM	#7
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	I suppose the requirements of a 'good' be-heading sword would include a two handed hilt. A 'heavy' blade, carbon steel with a 'v' edge and 'clipped point' The sword's balance would need to be 'top heavy' to aid the downward stroke. Axes were the norm. in Britain's earlier history....and a sword, such as I described above, would have 'axe-like' qualities. The advantage over the axe is the fact that with an axe,the weight is 'concentrated' at one end and it would be easy not to strike cleanly