Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris Evans
I have a reference, somewhere in my library, in which an experienced old samurai criticized a display of helmet splitting, by a colleague, arguing that he cheated buy using a naginata blade. Perhaps tsubame1 (carlo) can help us out here.
|
Naginata is for sure a thicker blade then a Katana. Anyway,
Kabutowari (helmet-cutting), even if much less known then other forms of
fixing Wazamono rating (ability to cut) has been performed in old times and
a fist of times in modern days too, with swords. The most known is the one advertised here :
http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html . This link provides further information about past Kabutowari tests as well.
Nonetheless this specific cutting test isn't IMHO enough historically accurate.
The blade IS NOT a NihonTo. Is a blade made by Paul Champagne, that's for sure an incredibly good blade, but has no value for a comparative test with NihonTo. More belivable is the previous test (which likely Obata Toshihiro has been inspired by) made by Terutaka Kawabata Sensei.
The following picture (not reported in that site) refers to the experiment made by (scroll down to Post-Meiji attempts in the link provided) Terutaka Kawabata Sensei with Yoshihara Yoshindo *unmounted* blade. This detail is of great importance and this is the reason I scanned the picture (Obata test was made the same way, without a proper made handle).
These tests are often referred to as unreliable due to the fact the neck of
the helmet's owner would absorbe a lot of energy (resulting, IMHO, in the breaking of the said neck BTW...), an opponent isn't a fixed target but a mobile one (of no pertinence, IMHO) and that the helmet was old and possibly already damaged. Even if the first statement can have some validity, as per the 3rd one the helmet was accurately choosen and of good quality (sic...) and the blade made the traditional way. The lack of mounting can only add to the ability of the cutters and, in a lesser way, to the quality of the blades. Being the helmet, for it's shape and paramount importance, likely the most resistant part of the armor, it can be, IMHO, safely assumed that *some* armors, might be the lesser or lighter ones, could be cut *in some places* (sleeves and other) by a sword (not necessarily a japanese one and no matter about the steel used).
As per swords durability : Oakeshott used to say "a sword has 3 battles or
3 hundred years in it, whichever come first".
Quiet exaggerate IMHO (at least for NihonTo that have 9 centuries battle-proof living examples...), but gives a good idea about a general rule : nothing is forever in this world and the swords that have survived till today either :
a) have seen few to no usage
b) have been used, even heavily, but were of very high quality
c) had an incredible amount of luck
d) an interesting mix of the previous three statements .