Burmese Dha/ Thai Daab...why Guardless????

aiontay · 10th September 2009, 03:59 AM

Fearn,
I don't doubt you're right, but part of the problem is maybe we're trying to cover too much ground with the term. If, as I said, you're talking about the more overt weapons that would be owned by upper class Burmans, Mons, Shans, Thais etc that is one thing, but a Karen of Kachin blade, or even those owned some Northern Thai farmer called up to go fight Chiang Tung?

While guards on any knife are useful, many utility blades tend not to have substantial guards. Of course, there's always something like a Woodsman's Pal. On the other hand, guards can get in the way, and not just in bushes. I remember stopping in a Lahu village on a trip with some Lahu pastor friends on a trip along the Thai/Burmese border, and the village headman peeled us a cucumber using, not a dha/daab, but a big field knife about the size and shape of a Roman gladius, but single edged. He choked up on the back of the blade and held rest of the blade and handle up along his forearm. I'd have gotten a much smaller knife, but hey, they liked big blades up there. A guard would have probably complicated the peeling procedure. I doubt Naresuan or Alaungpaya did a lot of cumcumber peeling with their blades, but some of their soldiers probably did, and more of it than cutting down enemy soldiers.

One other consideration, at least further up in the hills is that in the past metal wasn't exactly plentiful so there is an economic trade off as well. It seem a lot of backwoods blades, wherever the backwoods are, lack guards, and I suspect that might be in part due to the relative scarcity of metal, and the lack of technical expertise to get the fine tuning you talk about Fearn. It would be easier and cheaper to forgo the guard and lengthen the handle.

Finally, based on the little Krabri Krabong I did, I didn't see a whole lot of pull and cut. Yes, it is there, and the style of blade certainly facilitates it, but there was also a whole lot of straight-ahead nasty full power swings and chops, stuff that looked like you'd cut through an elephant (which they had to do back in the old days). It could have just been my instructors, but I always found it a bit too open and straight ahead for my taste. One day one of my instructors, sort of on a lark, came at me unexpectedly. I hadn't told him of my FMA background, so I think he was rather shocked when I zoned to the side and ended up behind him. Even though we were using rattan practice swords I was in position to deliver a decisive blow, but he was my teacher, so I just stood there and we went back to what we were training. However, if I were outside the walls of Chiang Mai with a few thousand other guys fighting for our Thai or Burmese overlord (depending on the time period) against a few thousand invaders with hundreds of elephants, a style that pretty much cuts through anything in front of it would definitely be my choice.

Like I said, I didn't do that much training in Thai or Karen sword fighting, so someone with more experience would be great to hear from on how the blades should be used.

fearn · 10th September 2009, 04:19 AM

Hi Aiontay,

We pretty much agree. I'd note that, for chopping, hand shock really, really matters, and it's easier to make a new wooden handle than a new metal blade. I'm guessing for the hill tribes (who like the long hilts), on a simple, wooden-hilt dha, they'd probably start with too long a hilt and cut it shorter until they got it right.

As you noted, a simple, guardless design is more versatile than (most) guarded blades.

Finally, it's not hard to tune a simple, straight blade. All you have to do is find the sweet spot and tap it on something, and move your hand up and down the hilt until you're comfortable.

With something that's curved or odd-shaped, it's going to take more work to get everything right.

Best,

F

DhaDha · 11th September 2009, 04:30 AM

For reference, here are a few more videos showing some other techniques/styles from the region.

1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVlV7Qnncmc

2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKsuj...eature=channel

This whole video is great, but they start the sword techniques about half way through.
3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV_w7...eature=related

Cheers

Nathaniel · 11th September 2009, 05:15 AM

Thanks for your comments guys....any others want to weight in???

How about the Dha Fathers...Ian...Andrew...Mark???

Nathaniel · 11th September 2009, 05:36 AM

Nice video's Shawn,

Here are some Burmese ones to toss in too...one of my favorite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anz3r...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlpamOnORoI

Burmese line dancing... :P
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...oID=2029653955

Nathaniel · 14th September 2009, 05:03 AM

Any other thoughts anyone why the lack of guard with thai/ Burmese swords?

Chris Evans · 14th September 2009, 11:22 AM

Hi,

I don't know how relevant this is in the context of Thai/Burmese sword play, but Egerton Castle argued that European swords were originally thought of as weapons of offense and only during the renaissance did this attitude change. It follows that the complexity of the hilt was a good indicator of the degree of defence expected from the blade and furthermore the coverage afforded by the hilt also offered a clue to the "tightness" of the prevailing swordplay. According to this thesis, as fencing evolved, so did hilts.

I have seen Thai fencing and swords, but am totally unsure as to how the modern forms would compare against their classical era. I was told in Thailand by a professor of antiquities that their now traditional swords were modelled on the Japanese blade, but were furnished in accord with local tastes. My guess is, and that is all, that most of their old swordplay would have been in single time, relying on bodily evasion or armour for defence and the sword was used primarily for attacking.

Cheers
Chris

Mark · 18th September 2009, 03:33 PM

A very interesting question. One thought I had was that it could be an historical accident, a consequence of the evolution of the dha from a mixed utility tool to a pure weapon. As some have pointed out, a guard might get in the way on a blade that is primarily a tool (like a machete). The dha is not alone in being a sword evolved from a mixed-use tool, and lacking a guard (some parangs come to mind).

No one has mentioned the other protective function of a guard - to keep your hand from slipping down the blade in a thrust. In that context, the lack of a guard is not so surprising because a dha is/was used almost exclusively as a slashing weapon, like a shashka (which also lacks a real guard).

11th September 2009, 04:30 AM	#3
DhaDha Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 178	For reference, here are a few more videos showing some other techniques/styles from the region. 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVlV7Qnncmc 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKsuj...eature=channel This whole video is great, but they start the sword techniques about half way through. 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV_w7...eature=related Cheers Last edited by DhaDha; 11th September 2009 at 04:43 AM. Reason: Finally made the links work.

10th September 2009, 03:59 AM	#1
aiontay Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 88	Fearn, I don't doubt you're right, but part of the problem is maybe we're trying to cover too much ground with the term. If, as I said, you're talking about the more overt weapons that would be owned by upper class Burmans, Mons, Shans, Thais etc that is one thing, but a Karen of Kachin blade, or even those owned some Northern Thai farmer called up to go fight Chiang Tung? While guards on any knife are useful, many utility blades tend not to have substantial guards. Of course, there's always something like a Woodsman's Pal. On the other hand, guards can get in the way, and not just in bushes. I remember stopping in a Lahu village on a trip with some Lahu pastor friends on a trip along the Thai/Burmese border, and the village headman peeled us a cucumber using, not a dha/daab, but a big field knife about the size and shape of a Roman gladius, but single edged. He choked up on the back of the blade and held rest of the blade and handle up along his forearm. I'd have gotten a much smaller knife, but hey, they liked big blades up there. A guard would have probably complicated the peeling procedure. I doubt Naresuan or Alaungpaya did a lot of cumcumber peeling with their blades, but some of their soldiers probably did, and more of it than cutting down enemy soldiers. One other consideration, at least further up in the hills is that in the past metal wasn't exactly plentiful so there is an economic trade off as well. It seem a lot of backwoods blades, wherever the backwoods are, lack guards, and I suspect that might be in part due to the relative scarcity of metal, and the lack of technical expertise to get the fine tuning you talk about Fearn. It would be easier and cheaper to forgo the guard and lengthen the handle. Finally, based on the little Krabri Krabong I did, I didn't see a whole lot of pull and cut. Yes, it is there, and the style of blade certainly facilitates it, but there was also a whole lot of straight-ahead nasty full power swings and chops, stuff that looked like you'd cut through an elephant (which they had to do back in the old days). It could have just been my instructors, but I always found it a bit too open and straight ahead for my taste. One day one of my instructors, sort of on a lark, came at me unexpectedly. I hadn't told him of my FMA background, so I think he was rather shocked when I zoned to the side and ended up behind him. Even though we were using rattan practice swords I was in position to deliver a decisive blow, but he was my teacher, so I just stood there and we went back to what we were training. However, if I were outside the walls of Chiang Mai with a few thousand other guys fighting for our Thai or Burmese overlord (depending on the time period) against a few thousand invaders with hundreds of elephants, a style that pretty much cuts through anything in front of it would definitely be my choice. Like I said, I didn't do that much training in Thai or Karen sword fighting, so someone with more experience would be great to hear from on how the blades should be used.

10th September 2009, 04:19 AM	#2
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi Aiontay, We pretty much agree. I'd note that, for chopping, hand shock really, really matters, and it's easier to make a new wooden handle than a new metal blade. I'm guessing for the hill tribes (who like the long hilts), on a simple, wooden-hilt dha, they'd probably start with too long a hilt and cut it shorter until they got it right. As you noted, a simple, guardless design is more versatile than (most) guarded blades. Finally, it's not hard to tune a simple, straight blade. All you have to do is find the sweet spot and tap it on something, and move your hand up and down the hilt until you're comfortable. With something that's curved or odd-shaped, it's going to take more work to get everything right. Best, F

11th September 2009, 05:15 AM	#4
Nathaniel Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 865	Thanks for your comments guys....any others want to weight in??? How about the Dha Fathers...Ian...Andrew...Mark???

11th September 2009, 05:36 AM	#5
Nathaniel Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 865	Nice video's Shawn, Here are some Burmese ones to toss in too...one of my favorite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anz3r...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlpamOnORoI Burmese line dancing... :P http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...oID=2029653955

14th September 2009, 05:03 AM	#6
Nathaniel Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 865	Any other thoughts anyone why the lack of guard with thai/ Burmese swords?

14th September 2009, 11:22 AM	#7
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Hi, I don't know how relevant this is in the context of Thai/Burmese sword play, but Egerton Castle argued that European swords were originally thought of as weapons of offense and only during the renaissance did this attitude change. It follows that the complexity of the hilt was a good indicator of the degree of defence expected from the blade and furthermore the coverage afforded by the hilt also offered a clue to the "tightness" of the prevailing swordplay. According to this thesis, as fencing evolved, so did hilts. I have seen Thai fencing and swords, but am totally unsure as to how the modern forms would compare against their classical era. I was told in Thailand by a professor of antiquities that their now traditional swords were modelled on the Japanese blade, but were furnished in accord with local tastes. My guess is, and that is all, that most of their old swordplay would have been in single time, relying on bodily evasion or armour for defence and the sword was used primarily for attacking. Cheers Chris

18th September 2009, 03:33 PM	#8
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	A very interesting question. One thought I had was that it could be an historical accident, a consequence of the evolution of the dha from a mixed utility tool to a pure weapon. As some have pointed out, a guard might get in the way on a blade that is primarily a tool (like a machete). The dha is not alone in being a sword evolved from a mixed-use tool, and lacking a guard (some parangs come to mind). No one has mentioned the other protective function of a guard - to keep your hand from slipping down the blade in a thrust. In that context, the lack of a guard is not so surprising because a dha is/was used almost exclusively as a slashing weapon, like a shashka (which also lacks a real guard).