A straight blade or a curved one?

manicdj · 2nd February 2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

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 · 2nd February 2006, 10:29 PM

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 · 3rd February 2006, 05:58 AM

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 · 3rd February 2006, 01:32 PM

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 · 3rd February 2006, 04:40 PM

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 · 3rd February 2006, 04:52 PM

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

MABAGANI · 4th February 2006, 07:07 AM

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 · 4th February 2006, 05:10 PM

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 · 4th February 2006, 09:35 PM

Quote:

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?

3rd February 2006, 05:58 AM	#3
Titus Pullo Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 123	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. Last edited by Titus Pullo; 3rd February 2006 at 06:37 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2nd February 2006, 10:29 PM	#2
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	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

3rd February 2006, 01:32 PM	#4
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	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.

3rd February 2006, 04:40 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	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.

3rd February 2006, 04:52 PM	#6
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	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 length2 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

4th February 2006, 07:07 AM	#7
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	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.

4th February 2006, 05:10 PM	#8
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	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