![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,911
|
![]() Quote:
Thank you very much for the photos and info you provided! I found rather confusing you mentioning that 17 century or earlier European sword were very flexible. ![]() From all that I know European swords were exactly the contrary. They were very stiff and heavy as they were designed to deliver powerful blows against heavily armoured oponents. Powerful blows that were not necessarily supposed to cause any cuts but to shatter bones and throw opponents out of balance. Practically none of the European swords I know (and I handled quite a few) had blades flexible enough to be suitable for Patas. Second, the citation you give from Rawson is very misleading at least. Patas may have been effective weapons in certain circumstances but they are extremely ineffective in others. For example, Patas are effective fighting multiple enemies wearing no armour in relatively wide open spaces but are very ineffective in crammed battles or against armoured opponents. Moreover, Patas are effective at delivering slashing/whipping blows, but are definitely not effective at thrusting/stabbing as their greater flexibility and length will make them easily bend if they encounter the slightest resistance like chainmail or even bone. Also the whole arm grip, makes the Pata very unsuitable for close combat in crammed spaces because of difficulties in handling the blade. So, I believe Rawson got his information from anecdotal sources that cannot stand thorough scrutiny, and this would be a good example where flawed information has become to be considered as reference. It would be interesting to see what others have to say about this subject. Regards, Marius Last edited by mariusgmioc; 2nd August 2016 at 01:10 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|