A straight blade or a curved one?

[Jens Nordlunde]

A lot of good and bad things can be said about straight blades, as well as about curved blades, it all ends up, in which way the sword was intended to be used.

I don’t know if my theory is correct, so please correct me if it is not, but it seems to me that a straight sword, although good for stabbing, when it was used for chopping the impact must have given quite a chock to the hand and to the arm. Whereas a curved sword, with its cut and draw, would give a far lesser impact force, which would have been good for the hand and arm.

Does any of you have any experience with the two kinds of blades?

[ariel]

maybe, we can ask some postal workers?

[MABAGANI]

I'm not a postal worker, lol, but I like to swordplay with antiques. There are a bunch of factors you need to take into account with the hilt, length, blade alignment, grip, impact area, target, etc. with either the straight or curved blade. In general, a straight blade in relation to the hilt could have a forward lean, straight or back lean and each is going to move different so it depends on what one wants to accomplish in a fight. Most the time its not really a chop but a cut drag on impact. A straight blade with a forward lean drags deeper, back lean slices more automatically, and a blade straight with the hilt, one would cut draw. A curved blade slices more naturally leading into arced motions to another cut or ends and leads into another cut if needed. The effects on the arm and hand with either the straight or curved blade depends on the skill and conditioning of the swordsman and it deals more with body mechanics and structure besides what one strikes. Of course, one could rig it all into a machine and do calculated measurements but it'd miss the whole complex human aspect and reality.

[Radu Transylvanicus]

Originally Posted by ariel

maybe, we can ask some postal workers?

Jens, this is such a vague subject, unless you have specific examples in mind, no answer should be satisfactory.
And a reminder that straight swords are generally associated with thrusting and pedestrian usage while curved swords (sabers) are associated slashing and cavalry usage. As far as a chop cut , yes the straight sword impact on target has more blunt stop than a curved blade, therefore it does stress you wrist more. There are some most interesting and disturbing written military accounts on the subjact of sword comparation used by the French versus English soldiers in combat during the Napoleonian wars, the English one was the curved 1796 Light Cavalry pattern saber.

[manicdj]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

A lot of good and bad things can be said about straight blades, as well as about curved blades, it all ends up, in which way the sword was intended to be used.

I don’t know if my theory is correct, so please correct me if it is not, but it seems to me that a straight sword, although good for stabbing, when it was used for chopping the impact must have given quite a chock to the hand and to the arm. Whereas a curved sword, with its cut and draw, would give a far lesser impact force, which would have been good for the hand and arm.

Does any of you have any experience with the two kinds of blades?

I have had a little exp. with both only as a hobbie. in the spirit of pounding the heck out of A hay-stack I had to much fun to notice the dif.

[Tim Simmons]

Great either way, as long as it does not stay curved down .

[B.I]

hi jens,
maybe worth considering the time and place, as well as the form. maybe the sabre is more useful when encountering a certain type of enemy, armed with a specific type of weapon.
i remember getting a lesson/lecture/speech about why the british 1908 was the most effective of military swords, even though it was straight amidst a pattern of curved predecessors (including the previous best - the 1796). cant remember the details (may have fallen asleep :-) but know the military history and current wars were taken into consideration when the design was approved.

[manicdj]

I like both, they are both fun when pounding the heck out of hay-stack

[Tim Simmons]

I have to agree

[manicdj]

Originally Posted by B.I

hi jens,
maybe worth considering the time and place, as well as the form. maybe the sabre is more useful when encountering a certain type of enemy, armed with a specific type of weapon.
i remember getting a lesson/lecture/speech about why the british 1908 was the most effective of military swords, even though it was straight amidst a pattern of curved predecessors (including the previous best - the 1796). cant remember the details (may have fallen asleep :-) but know the military history and current wars were taken into consideration when the design was approved.

when the need is great, insperation is the rule " so they say"

[fearn]

Hi Jens,

A couple of quick thoughts.

1) You might find this article interesting: http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm

2) Burton's Book of the Sword has a really good discussion about the relative advantages of straight vs. curved.

We can also add in a discussion that has popped up here, about how blunt, squarish tips are better for chopping than long, thin tips, because there is less tip shock.

Those are some quick thoughts. I'll get back to this later.

F

[Titus Pullo]

How about you make it bulkier, a little thicker, and a little shorter with the straight swords? I would imagine it would be more useful. This allows it to cut and thrust very affectively, and it also means that the user must go through a series of regorous strength training exercise to build up muscles to be able to use it well.

I think if I was going with something that you would use to stab someone, I'd go with a lance. Ones with just the right length, not too long not too short, so you can use it to bash someone in the head, face, nose, teeth, with long penatrating point so you can us it to cut someone like a sword, also. This was how the Siamese liked to use a lance on horse. I think with a lance once the initial charge has been lost, it looses its advantage. Using them in a charge would be useful, but for some people like high ranking commanders and his guards a heavy sword would be more useful, since they would not see much action.

[Andrew]

This is always an interesting comparison, even though it so often shows up in the form of tiresome "Samurai vs. Knight" debates.

Reinhardt's ARMA essay referenced by Fearn is helpful. I recall following many, many threads on SFI and Netsword about this issue. My recollection is that straight blades, generally, cut as well as curved. This has also been my personal experience.

The curve (or lack thereof) and construction of a particular blade can certainly affect and influence the approach and technique used, as can the various elements Mabagani mentioned. However, I'm unaware of any convincing evidence demonstrating that one form is superior to another under all circumstances.

I do believe straight blades are superior to deeply curved blades in the thrust.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Fearn,

Thank you for the link, which I found very interesting, as I have never seen the history of swords described so well in such a little space.
My question is not, ‘is one sword better than the other?’
It is more in the direction, ‘when did the curved sword start to be used, and why - due to the stress of the impact, or why?’
The author gave part of the answer when he wrote, ‘when they started to fight from a horse’ (quoted from memory).
The Vikings mostly rode to the battlefield, got off the horse and started fighting.
The early horse fighters used bows, and had a sword as a second weapon – if they had any sword, but as the author is concentrating on swords, we can forget about this part. When the swords started to be one of the main weapons, they started, to be more or less curved, due to the way of fighting, and to the cutting effect fighting another man on horse, even a standing man, but, and this is interesting, when the man was laying down he was difficult to reach – so the cavalry sword got straight again.

[fearn]

Hi Andrew,

I think you're right about cutting, but here's Burton's idea, for what it's worth. It would be easier to illustrate, but I'll try it with words:

Basically, a slash means that the blade is sawed on one point, rather than coming straight down on it (a chop). The curved blade has two advantages.

Let's assume that we're going to slash with a one foot (30 cm long) straight sword that is 2 in (5 cm) thick, and with a saber that curves up so that its blade length is about 20 inches (50 cm) over that same foot. Its blade is also 2 inches thick.

Basically, with the saber, you slash with ~180% more blade than with the straight sword. Since length matters for the depth of the slash, a saber is definitely a better slashing weapon.

For chopping, Burton's idea about the saber's advantage depends on trigonometry. Basically, the saber cuts at an angle, rather than straight on. So the sword cuts with 2 inches of steel about the point of the cut, where the saber cuts with something like 3.3 inches of steel above the point of the cut (basically, it's 20 in curved blade/12 in straight length*2 in thick). There's more metal above the cut, and *all other things being equal*, this additional metal weighs that part of the blade down and drives it deeper.

Now, I think it would be pretty difficult to make everything else equal in order to do the experiment, but that's the idea. It's also worth noting that axes seldom have straight edges.

We haven't even talked about down-curved points (a la those nice African sickle swords), and they have a different advantage.

The point about stabbing with a curved blade is right on.

My 0.02 cents,

F

[not2sharp]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

...when it was used for chopping the impact must have given quite a chock to the hand and to the arm. ...

All knife and sword blades have a point of precussion somwehere along the blade. It is the point at which the sword mass is centered, and where the maximum amount of force will be transferred. I would suggest that a skilled user would be trained to deliver powerful blows with that portion of the blade; and, as long as the point of impact occurs there, the vibration and shock transmitted to the user would be minimal.

n2s

[MABAGANI]

In a recent documentary I helped with on the Filipino martial arts, there was a segment about Moro blades in which Cecil Quirino makes a statement from a study about the depth of penetration in a vertical cut from collar bone down through the chest, the order of cutting ability was the kris, kampilan, then the barung which could cut the deepest.
The kris is an example of a forward leaning sword, the kampilan a backward lean, and the barung a curved short sword. Its not conclusive for every type but it gives an idea of what each can do. Each design had their advantages and disadvantages but in order to compensate for fighting in close quarters and against multiple opponents, there was the wavy kris which could rebound or cut depending on circumstance, its thrust could enter and retract easier, the kampilan with spike could limit thrust penetration to a few inches enough to do internal damage but not get trapped and the hilt alignment allowed pulling the blade back for multiple vertical cuts and drawing.
btw The one on one duel dealing with straight and curved blades lead into a whole different subject.

[fearn]

Hmmmmm.

I agree with N2S about the center of percussion being the "sweet spot" where the most force can be applied, but it's not the center of mass. The center of mass is where the sword balances. The center of percussion is somewhere forward of that. The way I heard of finding it is to hang the sword pommel up and swing it like a pendulum, timing the sword's period (how long it takes to make one swing). You then take a string and weight (i.e. a real pendulum), and vary the length of the string until you get a pendulum that has the same period. The length of the pendulum is roughly the location of the sweet spot on the blade. Hopefully one of the physics boffins on this list will correct me if I'm wrong.

Another issue in hand shock is where the sword is gripped. This is more important on long-handled swords, like dhas. Basically, a sword is a rod, and as such, it vibrates when it hits something. The vibrations are similar to those on a guitar string, meaning they're the least at the ends, the middle, and the quarters (nodes), and strongest on the eighths between them (antinodes). The best way to experience is to get a stick (broom handle, dowel, whatever), and strike the end against the ground fairly hard while you grip it at various points. You can find the nodes pretty easily that way, and it sure teaches a proper grip. You can also do the same thing with a blade, although I advocate using the blunt and being a little more gentle

If you're holding the sword at the wrong point, or if the sword is designed badly, you'll grip near an antinode and get shocked each time the blade hits.

Hope this is useful,

F

[Battara]

Originally Posted by MABAGANI

In a recent documentary I helped with on the Filipino martial arts, there was a segment about Moro blades in which Cecil Quirino makes a statement from a study about the depth of penetration in a vertical cut from collar bone down through the chest, the order of cutting ability was the kris, kampilan, then the barung which could cut the deepest.
The kris is an example of a forward leaning sword, the kampilan a backward lean, and the barung a curved short sword.

Mabagani, would you please site (or email me) the reference from which Cecil quoted?

[Jim McDougall]

While I cannot claim any particular martial expertise, it seems to me that in using the straight sword for cutting rather than thrusting, in many cases the point would be the focus of the cut in a slashing effect. In fencing resources this was noted as a tearing cut with the point of the sword known as the 'stramazone'. While such 17th c. Italian swordplay technique would clearly not be applicable here in discussion of later combat with heavier swords, it simply seemed worthy of note.

While studying regulation military swords years ago, I found that the key debate in military technology concerning military swords was of course,cut vs. thrust as far as the mortality of the wounds. These debates continued from the 18th century into the 20th! and ironically it was not until the sword was entirely obsolete that the 'ideal sword' was developed. The British M1908 cavalry sabre, followed by the American M1913 Patton sabre of the same basic form apparantly provided the ideal blade for both cut and thrust. These cumbersome, huge swords were actually worn on the saddle, and while the British version saw use in WWI and even as late as the 1930's in India...the American version was not at all popular and never saw combat of any kind.

In use of the sword in battle it was found that unless the sabre wound was an obviously fatal one such as decapitation or massive blood loss and shock from dismemberment, recovery was possible. In the case of the thrust, with the well established lack of proper medical care, sepsis and death were typically mortal in most wounds involving any organs, massive hemorrhaging not withstanding. One of the key problems in many cavalry situations was the poor maintainance of sabres and thier inability to deliver substantial wounds. In many cases the dulled sabres simply delivered bruises and did not cut through heavy uniforms etc. However, during the Napoleonic wars, the British light cavalry M1796 was extremely effective with ghastly effect, and Napoleon declared thier use 'barbaric'. He had ordered his troops to 'give point', and even many of the light cavalry thrusted with thier sabres, again with deadly effect. The heavy cavalry of course carried huge straight swords, whose method of use was clearly established.

The backswords used by troops in the 17th and 18th centuries were intended to both slash and thrust and used by most mounted troops in these times. The cavalry in those times were 'dragoons' and typically dismounted in combat. The blades were heavy and long, for long reach off the huge horses, but as described, could deliver chopping blows quite effectively, but it does not seem rapid movement was involved. The wedge shape of the blade gave extra weight to the back of the blade and gave impetus to the chopping cut, driving the sharpened edge into the application. The false edge or sharpened segment of the back of the blade near the point gave the necessary dynamics for the thrust as well as slashing cuts with the point.

While the argument that thrusting with a sword in a cavalry engagement would clearly cause the rider to become dismounted, it seems to me that in combat the opponents would be essentially immobile at the time of the thrust, as in a melee. The Oriental style of sabre use relied on the fast moving draw cut, with the slashing cut allowing the continuing motion of the rider.

As has been observed, I think most of this depends on the situation. When one considers, in a dramatic situation, virtually anything can become a weapon, and the intensity of its use will determine its effectiveness.

Best regards,
Jim