XXL - one size doesn't fit all

[VVV]

I have enclosed pics of two oversized weapons - a sewah and an amanremu.
Or are they some other kind of weapons, considering the big size difference?
All comments appreciated.

Michael

[Ahriman]

I extrapolate from my experience. We have two sword in one of our museums. (I mean we, the hungarians) Blades almost identical, rather large btw, BUT one has a single-hand hilt, and the other a clearly two-handed one. Not even a bastard grip. I don't want to meet the wielder of the one-handed version. Both are battle-worn, so they're not decoratives.

This simply means that there are, were, and will be huge mooonster out there. And after a time, you can't swing a sword any faster regardless of blade weight... as your body-muscles-joints-teldons are the limiters. I mean, I can swing MY longsword as fast as I can the others... only difference is that mine is 6 pounds and the others are less than 4.

Never mind this; they are just too huge, not correct, don't worth a penny, and I'd love to dispose them. MYSELF.

[Mark]

I've never quite figured out the giant blades, myself. Sometimes they are just too big to be explained by an extra-large owner. Here is a super-sized dha, which even leaving aside the blade had to have been made for a HAY_UUGE person if it was made-to-fit:

Just compare the handles of these two (the blade of the top one is of a pretty typical length, actually (about 22 inches, or 58 cm), and the lower one's blade is on the short side at about 16.5 inches, or about 42 cm). But the handle of the top one is unusually long for this style of dha, and has a diameter about half again as big as the lower one, which is a more typical length. I am 6'1" (1.85 meters) and the gripping part of my hand, the distance from the end of my thumb along to the end of my fore-finger, is around 7.5 inches long (around 17 cm). The lower handle feels fine, but the top one feels funny because it is so fat, and ones grip on it feels insecure and uncomfortable.

I just don't think that there were many Thai around in the 18th-19th century who were significantly taller than I am. My guess is that it was either a status symbol of some kind, or ... um ... overcompensating for something.

Here is another fun one:

This is a Vietnamese mandarin and his entourage, circa 1900. I am guessing that the big guy on the far left may be around my height (and he doesn't look to be ethnically Vietnamese, so he doesn't count as a guy they might have made huge swords for ). Now check out in the group on the right, the third and fifth men from the right in the front row. Both are holding dha that I would estimate are about 4 feet long, or more. The sword #3 is holding looks quite a bit longer (5 feet?). These would all be symbols of the mandarin's power and authority, I expect.

[fearn]

Hi All,

Something to note about oversized weapons: yes, they could be status symbols. A good example of this is the currently called "Bagua dao" that you see for sale in catalogs. The current name is because Baguazhang is about the only martial art outside China that uses this particular weapon.

However, if you dig deeply enough, you find that these oversized daos were actually associated with the imperial court, as was Bagua (one Bagua master was the Dowager Empress's personal bodyguard). They are status symbols, basically a flagrant and oversized use of metal. If you've ever played with one or seen a Bagua master swing one, they're also pretty darned impressive. Regardless of what the catalogs say, you're supposed to swing it with one hand (you can, as long as you have strong wrists and use your hips...).

Now, this contrasts with the horsechoppers (pu dao) and the European two-handed swords (or the medieval Japanese "field weapons" like the bisento and the o-kama). These weapons were often (not always!) built for the purpose of cutting big things down to size.

The contrast I'm drawing is between oversized weapons built primarily for display and intimidation, and those built for cutting down pikes, horses, and other recalcitrant targets. In the real world, obviously, these two functions get mixed, so we have monstrously huge two-handed swords built for display and Bagua masters who like using the big dao in duels. Still, it's a distinction worth thinking about.

my 0.02 cents,

F

[Ahriman]

That's right, but I didn't even consider this possibility in this case (I mean, the topic-starter case) as the first oversized is simpler, more utilitarian than the small version, which removes the status-symbol variation. Of course, the westerners had huge paradenschwerter, but you can easily recognise one from the extreme decorations. The myarmoury.com twohander* is different, as it has no decorations, just as these swords. The next posted pic with the pair of dhas is different, as the big one has much more decor on it, if I'm right.

* the one with the 7" wide blade

[VVV]

Thanks all for the feedback so far.
I agree with Ahriman that status probably isn't the case with my two exampes.
But I see the point in them being intimidating (Fearn).
When discussing with a well known FMA Grandmaster he told me that traditionally;
the higher the rank/status, the smaller the personal blade.
I forgot to ask him if it was because of a smaller blade, vs a larger blade, reflected greater skill
of the user or if it was because he had bodyguards to take care of potential adversaries?
So one other possibility is perhaps that the examples I have were developed to compensate lack of martial skills?
Unless they are examples of completely other kind of weapons, not mentioned in the standard reference works?

Michael

[Spunjer]

here are a couple of XXL weapons from the Moroland.

Barung:
OAL: 31"
Blade: 25.25"
Blade width: 2.5"

Kris:
OAL: 32"
Blade: 28"
Blade width (avg): 1.75"
Gangya Wide point: 6"

i don't think these two has anything to do with status neither. they're very simple in form, nothing extravagant.

btw, i'm not disputing what the FMA Grandmaster said, but that's the first time i've heard that....

[Ahriman]

Using a smaller blade as a symbol is quite suicidical, I think. There's always something that goes wrong, and giving even MORE chance to the opponent is just crazy. So I'd bet the bodyguard version.
Btw, in my experience, with anything longer than 10", the longer-than-average form of a weapon is the more difficult to use. I mean, if the "average" is, say, 20", then it's average because most fighters chose those. Which means that it's a well-working form-lenght combination. Anything longer would be slower, and would need more calculation while fighting, as well as more power behind them to move as fast.
So, if the size is the symbol of skill, then longer-wider-heavier would mean better. It's easier to get someone with a longsword than with a huge greatsword which has a hilt only a bit longer than the longsword's, isn't it? (Btw, I love twohanders)
I don't like the "compensating for something"-part... it's just like as Clements wrote in the "politically correct way of learning swordsmanship". Back then, who would've cared about that?

[Tim Simmons]

If one fought or attempted to fight, as a gang of say five fighters with a combination of weapons then a variety of length and types working together would present more difficulty to your foe. A hole line may be structured so, I would think combat is more a melee than a one to one act of chivalry, the only problem is the foe want to cut your liver in the same way with a mixture of weapon lengths. Tim

[Ahriman]

You're right... there was a european gentleman who and whose friend were attacked by a gang of 20... the almost-victims had swords, the attackers swords, helmets, suits of mail... So much for the so-called chivalry. Which, again, stands against the "small size means better" thing. Short knives/daggers are good, especially if used combined with other weapons, but relying only on one of those, while the enemy has a full wardrobe handy... is not good.
And if I'd have to chose only 1 weapon, I'd pick a longsword. Handy in distance-keeping, but if needed, lethal in CQ as well... think about halfswording. BTW, did the eastern people invent it as well? I mean, halfswording?

[VVV]

I am not sure that the quote of a smaller blade should be interpreted as extreme as a toothpick against a spear
Weapon size is of course depending on the environment as well as what kind of weapons you expect your foes to use and what kind of protection they will have. In wintertime here in Sweden thrusting in an icepick hold with a knife would usually be a better tactic than slashing with a hammergrip because of the heavy clothing. And I heard a quote from another FMA grandmaster (Inosanto?) that he would prefer a knife to a handgrenade if fighting locked into a phone booth
Other factors could be the principles of your fighting system; footwork vs static stances, counterattack vs blocking, follow or meet the strikes etc...
Another interesting thing I picked up when in Philippines (I hope this doesn't start a FMA discussion on a weapons forum):
To counter the Barong (heavy choppers) in Mindanao the Filipino Marines use shortened down Visayan Ginuntings (light, both stab and slash).
Of course they don't train to block the Barongs...
And from empirical tests I heard it has been proven quite successful.
For more quotes on shorter weapons vs longer try google on f.i. Angel Cabales.

Michael

[Spunjer]

Another interesting thing I picked up when in Philippines (I hope this doesn't start a FMA discussion on a weapons forum):

it's all good . i would assume a lot of members here started as fma practitioner before naturally progressing to collecting swords. i guess it would give us a better understanding and appreciation of our collection.

To counter the Barong (heavy choppers) in Mindanao the Filipino Marines use shortened down Visayan Ginuntings (light, both stab and slash).
Of course they don't train to block the Barongs...
And from empirical tests I heard it has been proven quite successful.

interesting. i know on one of the threads, we were discussing how the barung is still presently being utilized. can our mindanao members elaborate on this?