This isn't related to my original question but, is the wakizashi considered a sword or a knife/dagger?
| Adam M.M. wrote: |
| This isn't related to my original question but, is the wakizashi considered a sword or a knife/dagger? |
Bit of both, really depends on size. Some tanto can reach the size of small wakizashi, some large wakizashi can be nearly katana size. The primary distinguishing factor is that the wakizashi has a single-handed grip, slightly larger than a tanto but smaller than the katana's two-handed grip. As such a wakizashi is used almost exclusively single-handed, while you have more options with the katana.
There is a lot of individual selection in this area, and almost all these weapons were commissioned by people who could afford them rather than mass-produced for combat. That's one area in which Japan does vary from the Western world-- most of their mass-produced weapons were common soldiers' arms such as spears, bows, and the such. Swords were less common until later periods when they became more of a status symbol. In the West, conversely, weapons were mass produced more indiscriminately. We are talking literal barrels full of swords-- something you would never have seen in Japan.
| Jeffrey Faulk wrote: |
|
There is a lot of individual selection in this area, and almost all these weapons were commissioned by people who could afford them rather than mass-produced for combat. That's one area in which Japan does vary from the Western world-- most of their mass-produced weapons were common soldiers' arms such as spears, bows, and the such. Swords were less common until later periods when they became more of a status symbol. In the West, conversely, weapons were mass produced more indiscriminately. We are talking literal barrels full of swords-- something you would never have seen in Japan. |
Were swords really that valuable in Japan? From what I've heard ashigaru often had swords as sidearms.
There was mass production of swords in Japan. For example, for export to China and SE Asia. For some details of the official trade with China, see http://markussesko.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/j...ing-china/
The usual Japanese classification of blades is:
Less than one shaku (approx 30cm, 1 foot) blade length: tanto (短刀, "short blade/sword")
1-2 shaku: short sword or shoto (小刀, "small blade/sword"), which includes wakizashi (literally "worn at side", so "side sword" is a good translation) and kodachi (小太刀, "small big blade/sword"). Kodachi are mounted like tachi.
2-3 shaku: long sword or daito (大刀, "big blade/sword"), katana (刀 , "blade/sword", same character can be pronounced "to") and tachi (太刀, "big blade/sword")
over 3 shaku,: great sword, odachi (大太刀, "big big blade/sword")
They're all "to", 刀. Like Chinese "dao" (same character), the same term refers to both knives and swords (and large polearms). As to whether wakizashi are knives or swords, the answer is in shoto/daito, long and short versions of the same basic thing. Thus, it's a sword.
The usual Japanese classification of blades is:
Less than one shaku (approx 30cm, 1 foot) blade length: tanto (短刀, "short blade/sword")
1-2 shaku: short sword or shoto (小刀, "small blade/sword"), which includes wakizashi (literally "worn at side", so "side sword" is a good translation) and kodachi (小太刀, "small big blade/sword"). Kodachi are mounted like tachi.
2-3 shaku: long sword or daito (大刀, "big blade/sword"), katana (刀 , "blade/sword", same character can be pronounced "to") and tachi (太刀, "big blade/sword")
over 3 shaku,: great sword, odachi (大太刀, "big big blade/sword")
They're all "to", 刀. Like Chinese "dao" (same character), the same term refers to both knives and swords (and large polearms). As to whether wakizashi are knives or swords, the answer is in shoto/daito, long and short versions of the same basic thing. Thus, it's a sword.
Postural balance is important in any kind of fighting. Its much easier to maintain balance with a free hand to act as a counterweight or support than to have both hands tied to the same moving object in front of you.
Adam M.M. wrote:
Well, it does give you something to grapple or strike with. In an emergency you can use it to block (I'd rather take a cut to the hand than one in the body). Remember that fights are against a person, not a weapon. The whole fighter is what you have to worry about and getting too caught up in individual weapons can make you miss that.
@Brian Nelson
Until sneaky longswordsperson whips out single handed thrusts...
As for civil wear, I'd probably go with a longsword. In particular one oriented a bit more for thrust and about 42-46 inches. As much because I've praticed with those the most, but there is the versatility too. Decent range, good thrusting, good cutting, half-swording, one or both hands, and if I run across a fully armored knight out to hurt me, its probably going to give me the best shot I'm going to get out of a sword. And with a decent suspension, they aren't very cumbersome for walking around with, even if it takes some getting used to.
| Quote: |
| I can't see any reason to use a one-handed sword when your other hand is empty anyway, why was this the case? |
Well, it does give you something to grapple or strike with. In an emergency you can use it to block (I'd rather take a cut to the hand than one in the body). Remember that fights are against a person, not a weapon. The whole fighter is what you have to worry about and getting too caught up in individual weapons can make you miss that.
@Brian Nelson
| Quote: |
| But remember that thrusting with one hand gives considerably more reach than thrusting with two hands with the same weapon, so the first advantage of the longsword is somewhat lessened when dealing with the thrust. |
Until sneaky longswordsperson whips out single handed thrusts...
As for civil wear, I'd probably go with a longsword. In particular one oriented a bit more for thrust and about 42-46 inches. As much because I've praticed with those the most, but there is the versatility too. Decent range, good thrusting, good cutting, half-swording, one or both hands, and if I run across a fully armored knight out to hurt me, its probably going to give me the best shot I'm going to get out of a sword. And with a decent suspension, they aren't very cumbersome for walking around with, even if it takes some getting used to.
| Mike Ruhala wrote: |
| Something to keep in mind is that there's not really longswords per se, there's only fencing, fencing long and fencing short. Some swords were made with features to be especially advantageous for two-handed use but you can fence long with a single handed sword and you can fence short with a two-handed sword. Artwork shows single handed swords being used with two hands several centuries before long grips become common. Considering ringen am schwert a trained swordsman is never really fighting with just one hand anyway. |
So did people not actually distinguish between longswords and one-handed swords in the middle ages?
| Adam M.M. wrote: |
| So did people not actually distinguish between longswords and one-handed swords in the middle ages? |
Not really. Whatever blade was typically carried at a particular time was simply called a "sword". Anything longer than this was called a "long sword" and anything shorter than this was called a "short sword". If the typical arming sword was only two feet long then a "long sword" could be any blade that was longer than two feet.
| Dan Howard wrote: | ||
Not really. Whatever blade was typically carried at a particular time was simply called a "sword". Anything longer than this was called a "long sword" and anything shorter than this was called a "short sword". If the typical arming sword was only two feet long then a "long sword" could be any blade that was longer than two feet. |
Yep. Although by the time swords that we now call hand and a half and longswords became popular and schools for fencing with them developed, longsword meant a sword made to be used mostly with two hands. But it might also be that it was more often called a two handed sword.
Depends on what you mean by that. There were names for specific varieties of swords but the only actual historical definition of the term "longsword" that I'm aware of comes from the early 16th century,
It's the way the weapon's wielded that makes it "long" and based on what I was reading last night "long" might actually be an ancient corruption of "left," referring to the fact that in fencing "long" you bring your left hand onto the weapon. This makes a little more sense to me because you actually lose considerable reach when fencing "long." Short gripped and long gripped swords were used with essentially the same system of fencing, the main difference being the relatively minor adjustments that need to be made when you tie both sides of your body together by grabbing a "longsword" with two hands. For the most part the fencing treatises just use the term "sword" regardless of specific configuration or era.
| Quote: |
| The first chapter teaches how one should use advantage in the longsword, which will be used with both hands, as the battle sword, riding sword, estoc, and many others, which I will for brevity's sake leave out.
~ Das erſt capitel lernd wieman phfortayl prauchñ ſol im langñ ſchwerdt wẽlchs gnucʒt wirt mit payden henden / als ſthlachtſchwerdt / reydtſchwerdt triecker vnd ander vil mer / die ich von kurcʒ wegen aus las. |
It's the way the weapon's wielded that makes it "long" and based on what I was reading last night "long" might actually be an ancient corruption of "left," referring to the fact that in fencing "long" you bring your left hand onto the weapon. This makes a little more sense to me because you actually lose considerable reach when fencing "long." Short gripped and long gripped swords were used with essentially the same system of fencing, the main difference being the relatively minor adjustments that need to be made when you tie both sides of your body together by grabbing a "longsword" with two hands. For the most part the fencing treatises just use the term "sword" regardless of specific configuration or era.
As there was discussion about swords in Japan, I might explain it for a bit even though it might be slightly off-topic. It's easier to understand the explanation with this pic:
[ Linked Image ]
Even though the Japanese sword did not go through as radical changing as sword went through in Europe, there are still various variations which indicate different usage.
There is a difference between the heyday of very large swords in Europe and in Japan. In Japan their peak would be roughly 1300-1430, where as in Europe they were to my knowledge mostly used between 1450-1600. Of course very large swords continued to see use in Japan to c.1600 too but the way of warfare was changing during the Muromachi era. The upmost Japanese style sword in the pic is a variation that would have been mostly used between 1450-1550. The middle variation would be somewhat "standard" for 1550 onwards. There was very little fighting in Japan after 1600. Edo period started and ended the several hundred years of warfare, last bigger conflict was in c.1640. During Edo period Tokugawa shogunate started to make rules relating swords and sword carrying.
Swords were mass produced in Japan too, especially the continuos fighting during Sengoku jidai created a huge demand for swords. During this time a lot of kazu-uchi mono "mass produced" swords were made, mostly in Bizen & Mino.
[ Linked Image ]
Even though the Japanese sword did not go through as radical changing as sword went through in Europe, there are still various variations which indicate different usage.
There is a difference between the heyday of very large swords in Europe and in Japan. In Japan their peak would be roughly 1300-1430, where as in Europe they were to my knowledge mostly used between 1450-1600. Of course very large swords continued to see use in Japan to c.1600 too but the way of warfare was changing during the Muromachi era. The upmost Japanese style sword in the pic is a variation that would have been mostly used between 1450-1550. The middle variation would be somewhat "standard" for 1550 onwards. There was very little fighting in Japan after 1600. Edo period started and ended the several hundred years of warfare, last bigger conflict was in c.1640. During Edo period Tokugawa shogunate started to make rules relating swords and sword carrying.
Swords were mass produced in Japan too, especially the continuos fighting during Sengoku jidai created a huge demand for swords. During this time a lot of kazu-uchi mono "mass produced" swords were made, mostly in Bizen & Mino.
Jussi, unfortunately your picture is not loading?
| Mike Ruhala wrote: |
| Depends on what you mean by that. There were names for specific varieties of swords but the only actual historical definition of the term "longsword" that I'm aware of comes from the early 16th century,
[...] It's the way the weapon's wielded that makes it "long" and based on what I was reading last night "long" might actually be an ancient corruption of "left," referring to the fact that in fencing "long" you bring your left hand onto the weapon. |
The French period translation of the text you quote uses "l'épée à deux mains" (the two-handed sword) and "la courte épée à deux mains" (the short two-handed sword).
Here is the beginning of that text and my quick translation:
| Quote: |
|
Ici commenche ung tresbeau livret contenant la chevalereuse science des joueurs despee, pour apprendre à jouer de lespee a deux mains, & aultres semblables espees lesqeles lon use a tout deux mains, auecq aussi braquemars, et aultres courts coulteaux, lesquels lon use a tout une main [...] |
| Quote: |
|
Here begins a beautiful book containing the knightly science of the sword players, to learn the play of the two-handed sword, and other similar swords that are used with both hands, and also of braquemarts and other short knives, which are used in one hand [...] |
This seems a rather clear indication that there were swords intented to be wielded with two hands, and other sword-like weapons intented for one-handed use. In light of that text I wouldn't say that a given sword becomes long- or short- depending on how it is used.
Regards,
I did an image search for "braquemars" since I was unfamiliar with that weapon... I wouldn't want to be in that kind of a fight! :eek: Seriously, I would just run away!
Anyway yes, there were swords specifically configured with long grips for fencing long, just like there were swords specifically configured for fencing half/short with blunted sections of blade. The weapon itself can be fenced long, short or one-handed regardless of the presence or absence of these features and such is seen in sources like the fechtbucher and period artwork.
Here's some pics of using two-hands on single handed swords from the 9th c.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4868/13197/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4956/15011/
And the guy in the second pic is so gangster he even dual wields with a short sax that has a two-handed grip!
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4956/15009/
Anyway yes, there were swords specifically configured with long grips for fencing long, just like there were swords specifically configured for fencing half/short with blunted sections of blade. The weapon itself can be fenced long, short or one-handed regardless of the presence or absence of these features and such is seen in sources like the fechtbucher and period artwork.
Here's some pics of using two-hands on single handed swords from the 9th c.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4868/13197/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4956/15011/
And the guy in the second pic is so gangster he even dual wields with a short sax that has a two-handed grip!
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4956/15009/
I've seen a two handed sword in west point museum that is no longer than a replica longsword, and a longsword that was very large. I think swords were made to fit a person's size back then. That two handed sword probably measured around 40 inches total while a replica two handed sword today is measured around 68-70 inches long.
Please, don't post David&Goliath images to prove that one handed swords were used with two hands. That what the bible says, nothing more.
I can't find the scripture that says David used two hands, if you can prove the Bible says that we'd have a spectacularly early date for the practice!
In the meantime here are some others from a bit further ahead on the timeline,
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4885/14173/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4688/12041/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4784/12597/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4196/13153/
In the meantime here are some others from a bit further ahead on the timeline,
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4885/14173/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4688/12041/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4784/12597/
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4196/13153/
No, the bible says that goliath had a particulary big sword (being sort of a giant), and david had to use both hands to chop his head off. It was just a proportionally bigger one handed sword.
Edited for clarity
Edited for clarity
Last edited by Augusto Boer Bront on Fri 08 Aug, 2014 12:02 am; edited 1 time in total
| Timo Nieminen wrote: |
| There was mass production of swords in Japan. For example, for export to China and SE Asia. For some details of the official trade with China, see http://markussesko.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/j...ing-china/
The usual Japanese classification of blades is: Less than one shaku (approx 30cm, 1 foot) blade length: tanto (短刀, "short blade/sword") 1-2 shaku: short sword or shoto (小刀, "small blade/sword"), which includes wakizashi (literally "worn at side", so "side sword" is a good translation) and kodachi (小太刀, "small big blade/sword"). Kodachi are mounted like tachi. 2-3 shaku: long sword or daito (大刀, "big blade/sword"), katana (刀 , "blade/sword", same character can be pronounced "to") and tachi (太刀, "big blade/sword") over 3 shaku,: great sword, odachi (大太刀, "big big blade/sword") They're all "to", 刀. Like Chinese "dao" (same character), the same term refers to both knives and swords (and large polearms). As to whether wakizashi are knives or swords, the answer is in shoto/daito, long and short versions of the same basic thing. Thus, it's a sword. |
I see, thanks for the explanation. Would common soldiers (not samurai) in Japan have daito or shoto as sidearms? (Assuming they had sidearms).
Really? the Bible as evidence?
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum