what is it

[Mark]

Indeed. You find through tangs very rarely in dha, and I sometimes wonder at their authenticity.

I read in Ferrars & Ferrars' "Burma" that the short tang is used to minimize vibration in the handle when the blade strikes. Andrew has done test cuts on several dha, including a modern custom one which I think has a long tang, so maybe he can comment on whether or not this is true.

[galvano]

Ok Ian it is really similar.
From where think that comes it your?
galvano

[Ian]

Galvano:

I believe that my sword comes from Northern Thailand/Laos, where many of the "Montagnard" peoples live. Neighboring Vietnam is also a possibility.

Ian.

[Mark]

An interesting piece of information possibly pertinent to these swords comes from a comment that the head weapons curator at the Thai National Museum made to our intrepid field operative, Dan Wilke. She said these look a lot like old Thai cavalry polearms.

One wonders if it is a case of derivation, or of convergent evolution. I don't imagine that there is much in the way of cavalry used up in the mountains of Annam, and a longhandled blade has its advantages apart from being able to reach people on the ground from the back of a horse. Still, I have this fantasy of a lost Thai cavalry unit settling down in the highlands and passing down their familiar chopper design to their decendents.

[Titus Pullo]

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

An interesting piece of information possibly pertinent to these swords comes from a comment that the head weapons curator at the Thai National Museum made to our intrepid field operative, Dan Wilke. She said these look a lot like old Thai cavalry polearms.

One wonders if it is a case of derivation, or of convergent evolution. I don't imagine that there is much in the way of cavalry used up in the mountains of Annam, and a longhandled blade has its advantages apart from being able to reach people on the ground from the back of a horse. Still, I have this fantasy of a lost Thai cavalry unit settling down in the highlands and passing down their familiar chopper design to their decendents.

I've heard something like the way that the way they used to fight, in the beginning, was holding a sword with two hands (kindda like the Samurais). Later, ofcourse, the handle was made a lot shorter with the hilt tappering down to a narrow end. This was an advantage because they change from fighting, holding the sword with two hands, to holding it with only one hand, and ofcourse with another sword, or a shield, in the other hand. So this might have been used interchangabally. If you've seen the movie, "The Legend of Suriyothai", she fought on the elephant's back with this type of polearm. Later the blade was made shorter and heavier for using on elephants'.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Titus Pullo

I've heard something like the way that the way they used to fight, in the beginning, was holding a sword with two hands (kindda like the Samurais). Later, ofcourse, the handle was made a lot shorter with the hilt tappering down to a narrow end. This was an advantage because they change from fighting, holding the sword with two hands, to holding it with only one hand, and ofcourse with another sword, or a shield, in the other hand. So this might have been used interchangabally.

Titus,

Where did you hear this? I am genuinely interested in your sources, particularly if they refute my understaning and beliefs about these swords.

Best,
Andrew

[PUFF]

I understood that Titus tried to explain a kind of polearm. Very much close to japanese "Naginata". Thai version of Naginatas are called "Ngaw". The blades construct are similar to "Dahb" There are short version of "Ngaw" too.

However, there are blades which are evolved from "Dahb". We called them "Dahb Chaleay". They have extended handle for more powerful chop. IMHO, Andrew picture might fall in this catagory.

[Titus Pullo]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Titus,

Where did you hear this? I am genuinely interested in your sources, particularly if they refute my understaning and beliefs about these swords.

Best,
Andrew

I've seen pictures of them, and in historical movies such as Suriyothai, and I think I must have read some from your website. I know that the way the Siamese fought in the early days of great conflicts is different than later. Later, the style of fighting with swords is a lot faster...ofcourse fighting with one hand is a lot faster. The reason is that their was a need to fight more. The Burmese threat had become increasingly very dangerous, quarrelsome, and very real. The Burman, the largest ethnic group in Burma, had subdued and passified other ethnic groups living in Burma and are also using their man power to fight wars with Ayutthaya, which was a very difficult kingdom to conquer. As a result, they always outnumbered the Ayutthaya. They only managed to seize it twice, and both times the kingdom was weaken by internal corruptions, bickerings, and traitors willing to give up the secrets of the citie's defense for a price (at one the traitor was no other than the father of the Siamese heroic King Narasuen, a great national hero...the irony that is). But what the Burmese failed to destroy was the people's spirit...like Hannabal failed to destroy Rome's spirit...the spirit of the Siamese people lived on and eventually they drove out the Burmese like Rome's vengance against Carthage and Hannibal, which eventually lead to the destruction of Carthage itself. So they didn't really conquer Siam, which went on the raise another army to defeat the Burmese like Rome.