A very interesting coincedence -and a new weapon type?
Two well-read recent threads and an epiphany.
While we talked about our awl-sword or Panzerstecher or whatever the thing was, and then talked about the new repros of the Mispronounski choppers, did anyone happen to notice the surprising similarities between
THIS:
[ Linked Image ]

AND THIS?
[ Linked Image ]

Three hundred years of seperation and a slight migration in form and function, but the similarities are surpising, don't you think?

Before, when talking about the two-handed Maciejowski chopper, it would be written off as a broken glave because we had nothing else to compare it to. We also had nothing to compare our 16th century armor-piercer to, either. That is no longer the case. :cool:

We have a new weapon on our hands, one that (very interestingly) follows the same migration from wide, thin-bladed chopper to narrower, thick-bladed piercer that virtually all swords do during the same period. And I have to wonder if we won't find more of these fellows burried in the iconography sometime in the future. :D
You may be able to find something of interest in this thread: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...light=falx
I remember that thread -though I remembered it being a little shorter when I read it last. :p

But at that time, we hadn't come across anything that so closely resembled the maciejowski weapon in blade profile and --more importantly-- in grip-to-blade proportion. Reminds me of the... how was it called in japan... nakigama?
nagamaki naoshi was a kind of shorter shafted pole arm. Looked not dissimilar in purpose to these European ones, bit like a Japanese naginata but blade shaped more like katana and short 2-4ft pole. I think they were mostly used pre-1500. Don't know whether they were designed for horseback or foot though.

Were the ones depicted in the first picture for tournaments or trials of arms ?
Daniel Parry wrote:
nagamaki naoshi was a kind of shorter shafted pole arm. Looked not dissimilar in purpose to these European ones, bit like a Japanese naginata but blade shaped more like katana and short 2-4ft pole. I think they were mostly used pre-1500. Don't know whether they were designed for horseback or foot though.

Were the ones depicted in the first picture for tournaments or trials of arms ?


Actually, the word naoshi means something like altered, or changed, or corrected. A nagamaki was simply put a polearm, with the blade longer then a naginata, and the shaft shorter then a naginata. Nagamaki itself means 'long wrap'. Since the the handle was still wrapped in the traditional style.

If a blade of a naginata or nagamaki was altered to a sword, the term naoshi was put behind it, hence naginata naoshi and nagamaki naoshi. Mostly, these refitted polearms were used as tanto's and wakizashi's.
There's a point to be made about the overall dimensions, but I think we're looking at vastly different "blades". The chopper is clearly a sword-like cutting blade, while the other weapon is clearly a spike of square or triangular cross-section (notice that we can see two facets or faces of this "blade" no matter which side we view it from).
I agree with Sean they seem to different in blade form and handle. The top ones look more like a type of tournament weapon. The bottom ones look different in style.

Thank you for that comment, Thomas. Yes that makes sense on the shortening, 'naoshi' being from 'naosu'. Some shorter (maybe shortened ? ) polearms I've seen have been marked as nagamaki naoshi rather than blades converted into swords. Perhaps that's an incorrect label or maybe the handle or tang was shortened in some way but still a polearm? Are all the ones descibed as naoshi you've seen converted into a different type of weapon ?
Daniel Parry wrote:
I agree with Sean they seem to different in blade form and handle. The top ones look more like a type of tournament weapon. The bottom ones look different in style.

Thank you for that comment, Thomas. Yes that makes sense on the shortening, 'naoshi' being from 'naosu'. Some shorter (maybe shortened ? ) polearms I've seen have been marked as nagamaki naoshi rather than blades converted into swords. Perhaps that's an incorrect label or maybe the handle or tang was shortened in some way but still a polearm? Are all the ones descibed as naoshi you've seen converted into a different type of weapon ?



I have never seen any nihon-to upclose I'm afraid. There aren't many of them in the Netherlands, and my journeys sofar have not yet led me to museums that do, either domestic or abroad.
But sofar, from books and several fora, I have no heard of polearms being described as naoshi. Sometimes a tachi was shortened, and with different mounts turned into a katana, however the term naoshi isn't applied then. So logically one would asume that the term naoshi is only used when it is changed into a completely different weapon. Tachi's were cavalry swords, but even when the blade was shortened and put in different mounts, it was still a sword.
I feel it is not within my knowledge of Japanese A&A to give a final answer. There is a nihon-to section on the forum of SFI, and the Bugei forum is visited by several industry proffesionals who are far more knowledgable in this field then me.
If I am proven wrong, please let me know. One can only learn from ones mistakes. :)
Sean Flynt wrote:
There's a point to be made about the overall dimensions, but I think we're looking at vastly different "blades". The chopper is clearly a sword-like cutting blade, while the other weapon is clearly a spike of square or triangular cross-section (notice that we can see two facets or faces of this "blade" no matter which side we view it from).


Ah, so the Type X has no common heritage with with a Type XV, then? And estocs sprang up from nowhere, by immaculate conception? ;)

I jest of course --in good humor I hope-- but I also say it with some seriousness. Look at the radical transformation the Falchion went through during the same period, for instance. From the broad-bladed types like the Conyers to the near-sabers so common in the late 15th century; but we can trace their evolution with some degree of certainty and so we don't question it. Is it really so outlandish to think that this weapon did the same?
Quote:
From the broad-bladed types like the Conyers to the near-sabers so common in the late 15th century; but we can trace their evolution with some degree of certainty and so we don't question it. Is it really so outlandish to think that this weapon did the same?


Maybe, if you consider these to be variants of the same weapon. Otherwise the theory is completely without foundation. I agree with Sean. I don't see these weapons having any more in common than a danish war axe has with a spear. Interesting comparison though.

Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum