Fencing with Sabers

[ariel]

To be sure: I use the word "fencing" as an equivalent of "swordplay", " sword fight" etc. It always has a meaning of "practical, military use". Choose your own favourite meaning, but be sure: this has nothing to do with the modern, official, Olympic sport.
Now we can start.
I just started re-reading the book by Wojciech Zablocki " Ciecia Prawdziwa Szabla", Warszawa 1989. ISBN 83-217-2601-1. Loose translation: Realistic use of a saber.
Mr. Z. is a famous Polish Olympic fencer who decided to evaluate the practical worth of different sabers as fencing (remember the first paragraph!) weapons.
To this end, he combined his training with the following research methods:
1.Studies of historical sabers in museum and private collections. This is quire remarkable: he personally used a total of 307 sabers: 15 Persian shamshirs, 23 Russian, 12 Arabian/Moorish, 6 Turkish 15th century, 27 Turkish 16th century, 23 Turkish 18-19th century, 2 Shashkas etc, etc, etc. These sabers were tested by him both during horseriding as well as on foot to get an idea of their suitability as cavalry weapons as well as infantry weapons.
2. Understanding of the mechanics of different sabers: eg, Kilij with Yelman and pistol grip; Nimcha with its characteristic handle; Shashka with no guard; Shamshir with highly-curved blade and a pommel bent 90 deg; Polish saber with thumb-ring etc, etc.
3. Analysis of old fencing manuals of 16-17th cen. and military drill handbooks of 18-19th century
4. Analysis of primary references: diaries of Polish noblemen describing saber encounters .
Altogether, this is, in my mind, the best study of the true working parameters of different sabers.
Conclusions:
Most of the described saber bouts were fought on foot.
Most of the damage was done to the head and Rt. arm
Multiple parries and ripostes were the rule
A saber bout between two horse riders produced many injuries but few fatalities.
Examples:

Late Kilij: very versatile, can be used for swinging cuts (on horseback) and circular cuts (on foot)

Moroccan: good for swinging cuts from the elbow.

Karabelas ( Polish type II, Russian, Turkish, Persian, Moldovian, Armenian): so-so, good mainly for circular cuts on foot. Mainly for decoration.


Shashka: ... very good for swinging cuts from horseback, good for circular cuts.The lack of hand protection makes normal parries impossible; only swing parries and side-withdrawals ( djigitovka) on horseback were used

Polish saber Type I ("hussar saber"): thumb ring enables quick direct cuts when duelling on foot. The center of percussion permits strong swinging cuts to be delivered from horseback. ...one of the best and most versatile sabers of the world.

His severest criticism is reserved for...
Persian shamshirs: "... are not the best for it is difficult to stop and to change the direction of a stroke. It seems that the high opinion enjoyed by Persian sabers was due rather to poetry and miniatures, than to the reality"

Any opinions?

[LabanTayo]

Ariel,
Is this book written in Polish?
Sounds like a really interesting book and I love the idea behind it!!!

I am in no way qualified to give my opinions of what is written, since the art and swords behind the research is not my forte. I still love the thought of it!!!

[ariel]

It is in Polish but there is a brief English synopsis.

[LabanTayo]

I will have to start looking for it online. Do you know of anywhere in the states to buy it?

[ariel]

Ask Wolviex on this Forum. The best source by far!

[Rivkin]

Well, If one wishes, one can raise many counterpoints to this study, starting with the fact that he did not train with shamshir and therefore might have misundertood the nature of shamshir fencing. However since there is not a single person alive who "really" knows how to use shamshir (i.e. studied under Shah Abbas or something), I guess this comment can be applied to any study of shamshirs.

Attached are a few drawings (c) by Nakov - unsheathing shashka, circular cut, correct way to hold the grip.

[spiral]

So the Polish auther states...

That the Polish saber is "one of the best and most versatile sabers of the world."


mmmmmmm A Slight national pride involved in his oppinion perhaps?

Or with greater benifit of the doubt, perhaps familarity over many years with the style affecting his judgment slightly?

Sounds an intresting work though.

Spiral

[wolviex]

Thanks for the intrinsting thread Ariel!
There was a post started by me on Polish hussars sabre link
so if someone is interest just take a look here.

I'll pass comment now, because of hell I have around for the next few days, so I'll wait until I can take a breath.

The book by Zablocki mentioned by Ariel is quite rare and highly expensive even in Poland, with prices deffinietely over 40$, not mention shipment fees for overseas countries. But if someone really needs the book (which is full of pictures of sabres with measurements) just let me know, I'll do my best, thought it's not easy (I even stopped selling the title on ebay months ago).

Regards!
Michal

[S.Al-Anizi]

Very interesting ariel, thanks for the heads up, I always like the idea of comparing the different types of sabres in the world. Anyway, is there a place where I could buy that book?

As to the shamshir, I always thought that had too much of curve, to use for anything other than swinging cuts from horseback.

Also, if that's too much to ask, where did Mr. Zablocki place arabian swords, and what he commented about them?

[ariel]

Originally Posted by spiral

So the Polish auther states...

That the Polish saber is "one of the best and most versatile sabers of the world."


mmmmmmm A Slight national pride involved in his oppinion perhaps?

Or with greater benifit of the doubt, perhaps familarity over many years with the style affecting his judgment slightly?

Sounds an intresting work though.

Spiral

Surely, there was a lot of national pride and there is, indeed, something to be proud of! However, he also values Swiss cavalry sabers very highly.
I handled a couple of Polish Hussar sabers and they are a dream! The balance is perfect, the thumb ring allows one an almost microscopic degree of blade control and thrusting is easily accomplished. Importantly, the limited curve allows one to use the very point of the blade and even a slight facial cut would disorient the opponent and allow the definitive movement to be made.
I also agree with him and Saqr about shamshirs: they are far too curved. What it means in practice, the percussion point is too far from the tip. It is ideally suited for mowing down fleeing infantry enemies from the horseback because the height of their heads and torsos will match perfectly the distance to the percussion point. However, the blade's point (tip) is so far behind that to use it one needs to overextend the arm and even twist the wrist down. In a one-on-one combat that would mean opening the head and the right arm completely with no possibility of quick recovery. Also, the thrust is virtually impossible, because the axis of the arm and that of the blade can not coincide under any circumstances.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by S.Al-Anizi

Very interesting ariel, thanks for the heads up, I always like the idea of comparing the different types of sabres in the world. Anyway, is there a place where I could buy that book?

As to the shamshir, I always thought that had too much of curve, to use for anything other than swinging cuts from horseback.

Also, if that's too much to ask, where did Mr. Zablocki place arabian swords, and what he commented about them?

Zablocki belongs to the Polish school and assigns a lot of importance to the handle. This element, in his opinion, determines the style of usage.He says that the Eastern Arabian (he calls them Damascus) were influenced by Turkish and Persian sabers and are good for swinging cuts from the horseback. Moroccan sabers are also suitable for swinging cuts from the elbow and he loves the support for the little finger.
Here we have a problem: there were so many different blade types used in Arabia that each had its own advantages and problems. My guess (and it is a very personal view) that the obtuse angle of the Arabia-proper sabers would not provide enough support for the hand.
He also does not say anything about Tulwars because he analyzed only sabers that had potential influence on Polish ones. I would love to know what he thought about the ( in my opinion, awful) disc pommel.
Generally, he does not rate them in any order. In his opinion, the Hussar Polish saber is the best (and I agree) and the Shamshir is the worst. Everything else has its own pluses and minuses. However, as you know, the arm attached to the handle is rather important, too
BTW, where did you get the shashka drawings? What is the difference between the two styles of gripping the handle( fist vs. pistol-like)? Which one is correct? I would guess the upper one is good for true swordplay, whereas the lower one mainly for swinging cuts.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ariel,

Thank you for that terrific and informative post. It would be really nice if that book could be translated.

What I write here is an additional commentary intended to clarify the concept of `fencing' with heavy weapons, and in no way disputes anything in your post. In any event, I am not sure if this belong to this forum as it pertains more to martial arts rather than collecting.

MODERATORS PLEASE ADVISE.

OK. With those disclaimer out of the way, and acknowledging your loose definition of fencing, I'll move on.

Any discussion of so called `fencing' with weapons that had other primary applications is always a vexed one. Perhaps `sword usage' would be more appropriate , as after all, sabres were intended for a specific military application rather than one to one dueling, for which there were much better weapons in Europe.

The great demarcator of sword play is what is known technically single (ST) and double time (DT) fencing. In ST play, the opponents attacks are not parried but rather evaded and then counter attacked, at times with defensive opposition or coverage provided by one's own blade. In DT sword play the attack is first parried by the defender's blade and then a fast counter attack is launched, the riposte. All too often cover or oppostion by the blade in ST, as well as beats and other actions on the opponent's blade are confused with parry-riposte play (DT). I must add that some historical fencers extend the definition of DT to parries made with auxiliary implements such as shields or daggers; Whilst this is true, it is not a common understanding of the term and renders discussion difficult and all too often meaningless.

Whilst some DT moves are possible with heavy swords, they just cannot be moved around sufficiently quickly to reliably intercepts all incoming attacks. Even where a parry succeeds, the riposte may be too slow to reach the opponent, though this is more true of point than edge play. So the weight of the sword is a primary consideration.

In Western European late 18th and 19th century sabre play, high attacks were (at times) parried and low attacks avoided, but rarely, if ever, were both parried as a matter of course, except with the much lighter spadroon. This was because of the ever present threat that the low attack was a feint and once the defender was committed to its parry, the upper regions became irreversibly exposed.

Swordplay using numerous DT moves first became feasible with the lighter transition rapier of the mid 1600s ,that superseded its ponderous predecessor, and came of age with the arrival of the small sword, a much lighter and faster weapon. Fully evolved smallswords weighed around 1Lb, a third of earlier rapiers and about half of late 18th&19th century military sabres.

Military sabres, weighing in the 1.75Lb- 3Lb range are too heavy to allow much DT play and if used alone for dueling (without a parrying implement), deliver a rather uncertain fight, one that depends too much on luck for its outcome, as was the case with the early rapier and broadsword - As a secondary consideration, numerous edge parries result in the rapid destruction of the sword. Hence the constant search for lighter and faster dueling swords, as exemplified by the perfected 19th century weapons, the French epee and the very light Italian sabre.

The primary defensive usage of military sabres was by way of covering: The defender would interpose his blade between himself and his attacker with the result that any cut made and received would land on his sword - This was a favourite technique of cavalrymen, especially if attacked from the left side - Of course, poorly made weak cuts could be parried and riposted, much in the manner of transition rapier play, but the parrying of strong cuts was a very risky business. That very little parrying was expected from military sabres is attested by the sketchy handguards found on so many.

I'll end by adding that point usage with a sabre, whilst fencing, is a very difficult business. In part because, as you pointed out, many do not allow the necessary alignment of the point with that of the arm, and in part because of their poor balance (for this kind of play). Sabres tend to have their point of balance (BP) well forward from the hilt, so as to make them effective cutters. In contrast, fast point re-alignment requires a much more more rearward BP. As well, effective point play usually requires a `on guard' position that leaves the sword arm vulnerable (to `time-cuts') .

Nevertheless, experts endowed with unusually strong sword-arms and fingers, and being well versed in point play with foils could fence well with a sabre, as for example Sir Richard Burton ad Cptn Hutton, though this was the exception rather than the rule. The English fencing historian Egerton Castle devoted a fair bit of space to this topic in his book and to which I refer readers interested in this fascinating subject. Unfortunately, IMHO, Castle was not as clear as he could have been and failed to sufficiently distinguish between the various cutting weapons and as such must be read with care - Nevertheless, he is very informative and remains one of the best resources to date in English.

Cheers
Chris

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by ariel

Zablocki belongs to the Polish school and assigns a lot of importance to the handle. This element, in his opinion, determines the style of usage.He says that the Eastern Arabian (he calls them Damascus) were influenced by Turkish and Persian sabers and are good for swinging cuts from the horseback. Moroccan sabers are also suitable for swinging cuts from the elbow and he loves the support for the little finger.
Here we have a problem: there were so many different blade types used in Arabia that each had its own advantages and problems. My guess (and it is a very personal view) that the obtuse angle of the Arabia-proper sabers would not provide enough support for the hand.
He also does not say anything about Tulwars because he analyzed only sabers that had potential influence on Polish ones. I would love to know what he thought about the ( in my opinion, awful) disc pommel.
Generally, he does not rate them in any order. In his opinion, the Hussar Polish saber is the best (and I agree) and the Shamshir is the worst. Everything else has its own pluses and minuses. However, as you know, the arm attached to the handle is rather important, too
BTW, where did you get the shashka drawings? What is the difference between the two styles of gripping the handle( fist vs. pistol-like)? Which one is correct? I would guess the upper one is good for true swordplay, whereas the lower one mainly for swinging cuts.

Thanks ariel. I would also have liked to see what he would have said about tulwars. Which polish sabre style is he referring to, there are many?

Excellent post Chris

[Yustas]

I happen to have a little training in Hungarian and Ukrainian style sabre fighting. There are movements from Western Europe (positions, blocks, cuts) but because of open grip and no finger ring there is a room for variety of wrist flicks, tricks, and hand switching that significantly help during one-on-one dueling and melee siege.
About difficulty to stop movement of a shamshir-there is another view. You don't stop the movement. You redirect it. It goes in circular motion all the time. Sabre should live together with a warrior's body. In time of training when I did about 1000 cuts and few hundred combinations in 2 hours I felt that body adjusts to this type of movement. It started working like one mechanism to save muscule energy for long time of battle. And this is an advantage of shamshir style. Plus i think, everyone will agree, that curved blade has much more cutting power then staight one. Open grip, no finger hook and strong curvature from my point of view are much better options for a big battles then straight blade closed grip and finger hold that suites better for smaller size dueling style European fights.
But don't forget great thing that Polish did - they put their techniques on paper for future reference.
But it is just my point of view

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

What I write here is an additional commentary intended to clarify the concept of `fencing' with heavy weapons, and in no way disputes anything in your post. In any event, I am not sure if this belong to this forum as it pertains more to martial arts rather than collecting.

MODERATORS PLEASE ADVISE.

Please post away, Chris. The discussion of the martial arts of these weapons is not only on-topic, but very welcome.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by S.Al-Anizi

As to the shamshir, I always thought that had too much of curve, to use for anything other than swinging cuts from horseback.

I disagree, Saqr. Certainly the extremely curved examples are nearly useless for a linear thrust, and far from optimal for any thrust, but a slash from an unmounted fighter would work just fine with those.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Andrew

I disagree, Saqr. Certainly the extremely curved examples are nearly useless for a linear thrust, and far from optimal for any thrust, but a slash from an unmounted fighter would work just fine with those.

My only hesitation is that the functional "uselessness" of the blade segment from the point of persussion to the very tip of the sword shortens its working span. I tried to wield some highly curved shamshirs and, just like with Black Sea Yataghans, it was quite difficult to judge the distance.
Surely, a well-placed slash with a shamshir would be highly efficacious, but to place it well while pretending to fight on foot presented a problem, at least for me. Must have required a different system of fencing.

Let's not forget that Mr. Z. was a professional fencer and valued speed, economy of movements and precision very highly. I guess the ability to stop the blade, to turn it on a dime and to precisely assess the distance must have been highly valuable for him. I am unaware of any written contemporary manuals of shamshir fighting. Or Yataghan, in the same vein. In general, it was mainly Westerners who had the compulsion to classify, systematize and put on paper everyting. But, as they say " If you do not write it down, it does not exist"....

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by ariel

My only hesitation is that the functional "uselessness" of the blade segment from the point of persussion to the very tip of the sword shortens its working span. I tried to wield some highly curved shamshirs and, just like with Black Sea Yataghans, it was quite difficult to judge the distance.
Surely, a well-placed slash with a shamshir would be highly efficacious, but to place it well while pretending to fight on foot presented a problem, at least for me. Must have required a different system of fencing.

Let's not forget that Mr. Z. was a professional fencer and valued speed, economy of movements and precision very highly. I guess the ability to stop the blade, to turn it on a dime and to precisely assess the distance must have been highly valuable for him. I am unaware of any written contemporary manuals of shamshir fighting. Or Yataghan, in the same vein. In general, it was mainly Westerners who had the compulsion to classify, systematize and put on paper everyting. But, as they say " If you do not write it down, it does not exist"....

I don't necessarily disagree. As I said, it's a design that's far from optimal for the thrust, thus significantly limiting options for technique. I still wouldn't want to defend against someone on foot with one.

Were shamshir used exclusively by horseman? Were they primary weapons? I suspect they probably weren't a rank-and-file weapon in any event. I'm also not so sure we should expect every sword to be a good fencing weapon.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by ariel

Surely, there was a lot of national pride and there is, indeed, something to be proud of! However, he also values Swiss cavalry sabers very highly.
I handled a couple of Polish Hussar sabers and they are a dream! The balance is perfect, the thumb ring allows one an almost microscopic degree of blade control and thrusting is easily accomplished. Importantly, the limited curve allows one to use the very point of the blade and even a slight facial cut would disorient the opponent and allow the definitive movement to be made.
I also agree with him and Saqr about shamshirs: they are far too curved. What it means in practice, the percussion point is too far from the tip. It is ideally suited for mowing down fleeing infantry enemies from the horseback because the height of their heads and torsos will match perfectly the distance to the percussion point. However, the blade's point (tip) is so far behind that to use it one needs to overextend the arm and even twist the wrist down. In a one-on-one combat that would mean opening the head and the right arm completely with no possibility of quick recovery. Also, the thrust is virtually impossible, because the axis of the arm and that of the blade can not coincide under any circumstances.

Thankyou, I must admit I havent handled a Polish Sabre, they do sound interesting from your discription.


I have a curved Afghan /uzbekistan sabre which while not as extreme of curve as some shamshir, but is still deafinatly heading for that catogary but Ive found if one turns it tip down instead of tip up it would thrust very well, & turning the wrist to turn the blade horizontal in a swing helps slow & allows me to redirect it. {Of ourse this implys no handgaurd parralel to the grip.}

Ive only had it a couple of months so I would guess people who grew up & trained using them may have other tecniques to minimise the percieved disadvatages some western trained swordsmen may percieve?

That said, it curve miust have been made for someone of the exact reach & movement as myself. Which Obviously doesnt always occur when we pick up old swords built for others.

Spiral

[katana]

Excellent thread guys...
....I too ....would have liked to see them test the Tulwar.

[ariel]

Spiral,
This is the exact problem with shamshirs: we are trying to reinvent the wheel!
Unless Persians were complete dolts who created their national weapon for purely esthetic reasons and then suffered its awkward shape, they must have known something that we do not.
Seriously, they must have had a system to handle shamshirs with extremely curved blades! But unless they codified this system in a written form, we will never understand how to wield this darn sword! As I said before, "If you did not write it down, it never happened". Very frustrating....
On the other hand, we may be imposing different standards: we are authomatically assuming that every sword should be fit for an intricate and controlled swordplay. Perhaps, Persians did not give a fig about "fencing" and used shamshirs as pure slashers....
Nothing "Eurocentric" about it: Westerners fell in love with Japanese or Chinese swordplay head over heels. They are foreign and exotic, for sure, but there is obviously a System. Western mind loves order and control and is ready to accept a different way of expression as long as it is codified. Perhaps, "Islamic" swordplay was not rigid enough and that what baffles us.
Where are all those art and arms historians when you need one?
The same pertains to the Yataghan.

[Zifir]

This is a short part from William Elton, esq., A Survey of the Turkish Empire, London, Printed for T. Cadell, jun. and W. Davies, 1799. on Turkish sabers. It might be for some interest.

The art of tempering their sabers is now lost, and all the blades of great value are ancient; however, their saber is superior to any of ours in its form and lightness. It is a great error in all the cavalry in Europe to have heavy sabers; I have often heard old German soldiers complain of it, and an old soldier is a good judge. It seems preposterous indeed to make all the sabers in a regiment of equal weight, without regard to the strength of the arm to use it; besides, a sharp light saber will make a deeper cut than our heavy sabers now in use. Among the Turks, every soldier chooses his own saber, and takes such a one as he cam manage with ease; thus, if he misses his stroke he can recover his guard, whilst a man with heavy saber is lost. The part grasped by the fingers in European sabers is much too thick, and weakens the hold. Much is talked in Europe of the balance of a saber by making it heavy in hand (The fulcrum is the fore-finger, and the back part of the hand presses down the pommel; but a man in battle does not keep his hand at one height; he lifts up his arm, and consequently has the weight of the handle of his saber to lift up, and the power is in the elbow and shoulder, not in the wrist alone. It cannot be expected that men in action, particularly new troops, will use their sabers in the same manner they do on field days.) ; this cannot be the case in any degree, except the knob or pommel project out of the hand towards the elbow, which will enable him raise up the point quick by the force of the wrist, after he has given a blow; but the weight of the fall of the blow is diminished in both cases. Let any man strike a blow with a saber heavy in the hand, and then take out the blade, and put on it a light small handle, and strike another blow with it, and he will find the difference. Let him strike with each fifty blows as quick as he can, and observe the difference in time, and the fatigue, and he will be convinced. The sharpness of the edge of the Turkish saber, and the velocity which the arm gives to a light weapon, compensates for the weight of the saber. All their attention has been paid to the saber for ages, with it they conquered their empire, and it certainly deserves some attention for cavalry. The edge of our sabers is never sharp enough, and the angle of the edge is too acute. In regard to its crookedness it has advantage, as a blow straight down gives a drawing cut; and it is a good defense, for the arm being held out horizontally with the saber upright in the hand, a small motion of the wrist turning the edge to the right or left, covers the body by the crook of the saber; the shoulder of the edge, not the edge itself, forms the parry. Fencing with crooked saber was formerly taught to the janissaries. The push with the saber only is preferred for cavalry, the lighter and longer the saber is better, and the nearer it is to a spear or lance. The blow upwards is esteemed the most dangerous by the Turks, as it is the most difficult to parry.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Zifir,

Many thanks for that most informative post. I wonder what was the weight of those Turkish sabres. Were they ever used with a shield, or always alone?

Cheers
Chris

[ariel]

Zifir,
Great quote!
I just wonder whether the author referred to Turkish kilijes that are highly esteemed by Mr. Z., to modestly curved sabers ( same) or to highly curved shamshirs. The statement that " ... the nearer it is to spear or lance...the better" is enigmatic: are we talking about length ( cavalry estoc?) or to limited curvature? I have never seen a saber that would be as long as a spear
Also, the author says that "the push with saber only is preferred for cavalry" which supports the idea that it was a primarily " one slash" cavalry weapon rather than an instrument suitable for swordplay.
Not so?

[Zifir]

For the weight of sabers I am not very knowledgeable. As far as I understood there was no standard weight, everyone chose a sabre suitable to its strenght.

The statement about " ... the nearer it is to spear or lance...the better" is also puzzling to me. What does he mean by it is not clear. Same is valid for "crooked". What does it exactly mean in English, I am not sure if the author meant a highly curved kilij or a modestly one.

Here is some more quotes from the same book:

Their best Turkish sabers have one great defect, brittleness; they are apt to fly like glass by a blow given injudiciously, though a person used to cut with them will, without any danger of breaking saber or turning its edge, cut through an iron nail as thick as a man’s finger.

As soldiers, even the best taught to use crooked sabers, are not always so calm in action as to make the best use of it, a blade tempered in the manner of the best blades in Europe is preferable, provided the edge be perfectly sharp, and the angle of it not too acute; and as to the crooked form, it also requires coolness and knowledge to use it, for if the part which bends most forward and the point do not descend in a straight line (i.e. if the edge and the back do not descend in the same line) the point will turn the saber sideways by its weight, as soon as the crooked part strikes, and prevent its cutting; for this reason a straighter blade, in an ignorant or timid hand, is preferable; but a light blade and thin hilt is absolutely necessary for the safety of the soldier. It may be remembered that the Romans, with their short swords, had a great advantage over the Gauls, whose long heavy swords soon tired them. A Turk, with his light short saber proportioned to his strength (for they are not long taking the chord of the segment) will not tire so soon as an European with his long heavy saber. I speak of cavalry, for the saber, after the invention of bayonet, is a bad weapon for infantry.

[Yustas]

Thank's Zifir,
Can i find this book on the web?

[Emanuel]

Wasn't the kilij also used by infantry among the Ottoman/Turkish troups? This would inply a far more complex system of sword-play than simply slashing from horse-back.

Zifir, this quote
"Their best Turkish sabers have one great defect, brittleness; they are apt to fly like glass by a blow given injudiciously, though a person used to cut with them will, without any danger of breaking saber or turning its edge, cut through an iron nail as thick as a man’s finger."
relates well to the True Combat Value of Wootz thread...I assume a perfect draw cut would be needed to cut through the nail rather than a simple edge-on hack as that would shatter the blade?
What I mean is, would the cut nail be a result of a drawing motion or simply due to the impact of the edge?

Emanuel

[Chris Evans]

Hi Zifir,

Again many thanks for your extremely informative quotes from that book.

I believe that this material is highly relevant to another concurrent thread, "True Combat Value of Wootz", and I think that you or the moderators should cross-post it there as well.

Cheers
Chris

[Zifir]

Originally Posted by Yustas

Thank's Zifir,
Can i find this book on the web?

Unfortunately, no. These are the notes that I took when I read that book long time ago. Until I saw this topic, I had completely forgotten about them. I think only places to find it are libraries or some rare book dealers if they have any copy.

Originally Posted by Manolo

Wasn't the kilij also used by infantry among the Ottoman/Turkish troups? This would inply a far more complex system of sword-play than simply slashing from horse-back.

I believe so. We have to be careful not to subscribe to the views of the European traveller/spy? accounts too readily. This guy was writing in a time when the superiority of Western military over Ottomans was already proven. His approach and views inescapably carry that self-confidence and also negligence over what he regarded as backward. But as long as we don't have a manuscript or a manual about such techniques, we can only speculate about it.

Originally Posted by Manolo

Zifir, this quote
"Their best Turkish sabers have one great defect, brittleness; they are apt to fly like glass by a blow given injudiciously, though a person used to cut with them will, without any danger of breaking saber or turning its edge, cut through an iron nail as thick as a man’s finger."
relates well to the True Combat Value of Wootz thread...I assume a perfect draw cut would be needed to cut through the nail rather than a simple edge-on hack as that would shatter the blade?
What I mean is, would the cut nail be a result of a drawing motion or simply due to the impact of the edge?
Emanuel

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Zifir,

Again many thanks for your extremely informative quotes from that book.

I believe that this material is highly relevant to another concurrent thread, "True Combat Value of Wootz", and I think that you or the moderators should cross-post it there as well.

Cheers
Chris

We cannot be completely sure but I think he refers to wootz blades. I don't know if cutting through an iron nail thick as a man's finger thing is true. We might need mythbusters to prove or disprove such a thing. Maybe there are some members who knows more about this, or came across such references.

[Emanuel]

Hi Zifir,

Thanks for the clarification! I can put into better words my confusion so far, and I can ask my question to the experienced metallurgists as well.
When hitting the iron chain/nail/armour/whatever, does the blade cut through the material or just break through it? Will the perfectly-forged wootz blade cut into the iron as it would cut into the wooden block, or does it split the iron from shear force?

Many thanks,
Emanuel