True Combat Value of Wootz

[Tim Simmons]

Ariel, have you practised any armed martial "arts" ? how many spears have you handled? The spear is the primary weapon. It can be used in a circular motion. I would agree that in a melee of a broken line the sword would have some advantages but you are still in danger of getting stuck by a spear. I think it is the combination of weapons that works best. Rather you than me, I would prefer to be one of the rabble rousers

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

Ariel, have you practised any armed martial "arts" ? how many spears have you handled? The spear is the primary weapon. It can be used in a circular motion. I would agree that in a melee of a broken line the sword would have some advantages but you are still in danger of getting stuck by a spear. I think it is the combination of weapons that works best. Rather you than me, I would prefer to be one of the rabble rousers

I see your point: even as recently as 18-19th century, the Brits maintained the superiority of bayoneted rifle over a sword. They had ample empiric evidence from their many Indian wars.
As part of my (long, long ago.....) fencing training, we had rather extensive bayonet practice; that is the extent of my knowledge. Since there were no official bayo competitions, we did not like it very much and preferred real fencing. Spear and bayo have a lot of advantages over a sword: distance, force, stocks with solid buttplates are handy etc... On the other hand, what is gained in distance, is lost in speed. But, Tim, to each his own and, since neither spear nor sword is a practical weapon these days, we can have this argument to our heart's delight over a beer or two, rather than on the battlefield.
And, buddy, if you want to be a real rabble rouser, get yourself a pitchfork!

[ariel]

Originally posted by tsubame 1

"Well, you'll have to deal with the fact that all started in present day Iraq, but I'm confident you can live with this... "

Once again, I am at a loss: what do you mean? That technology started in Hammurabi's Babylon? That wootz was developed by Saddam Hussain? What is the connection with the "present day Iraq"? What am I supposed to "live with"?
Please explain.

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by ariel

Originally posted by tsubame 1

"Well, you'll have to deal with the fact that all started in present day Iraq, but I'm confident you can live with this... "

Once again, I am at a loss: what do you mean? That technology started in Hammurabi's Babylon? That wootz was developed by Saddam Hussain? What is the connection with the "present day Iraq"? What am I supposed to "live with"?
Please explain.

Oh, c'mon Ariel, don't get so defensive just for any quote about middle east.

I meant that the book explain the way the western civilizations gained so much technological advantages over the others and all started with the availability of cultivable variety of vegetables, that occurred in the ancient Iraq.
Then availability of domesticable animals, over all the horse. More, the matter to be urbanized that enabled us to increase our immunitary system against bacteria and viruses that were later exported to other continents.
Really a good book explaining the way we begun what we are, placing the basis of the wester civilization that later lead to colonialism.

The way to reach the gatling gun we had and they not. I'm supporting your position, don't see you ?

[Rivkin]

Gentlemen,

Please, let us stay on track here.
Now to the weapons:
I think that our understanding of swords and "martial arts" is rather different from 500 years ago.
If you read mamluk manuals they are far more concerned with selecting and "maintaining" one's horse rather than some elaborate fighting moves.
Bow was the weapon of the steppe. Lance was the second choice (btw I doubt that one can use a cavalry lance in a "swinging motion"). A short spear I think was a relatively rare weapon (I hope to be corrected) - not used in falanga-like formations, not used by cavalry, too cumbersome to be used in tight infantry formations...

The lance had however two big disadvantages that swords did not - it did not work in high winds and maneurability was extremely low, often making it useless. Sword is a very good weapon because it can be used almost everywhere, but roman swords and legions did not save them from the onslaught of steppe cavalry.

And last, but not least, there is a chechen saying that loosely translates as "one can win with a sword of wood, but not without a heart of steel".

[ariel]

Originally Posted by tsubame1

Oh, c'mon Ariel, don't get so defensive just for any quote about middle east.

I meant that the book explain the way the western civilizations gained so much technological advantages over the others and all started with the availability of cultivable variety of vegetables, that occurred in the ancient Iraq.
Then availability of domesticable animals, over all the horse. More, the matter to be urbanized that enabled us to increase our immunitary system against bacteria and viruses that were later exported to other continents.
Really a good book explaining the way we begun what we are, placing the basis of the wester civilization that later lead to colonialism.

The way to reach the gatling gun we had and they not. I'm supporting your position, don't see you ?

I am not being defensive, and the Middle East has nothing to do with it: I just do not get your comments very often. Perhaps, it's my lack of the sense of humor or your telegraphic style.
As to urbanization as a cause of strenghtened immunity, tell the author to consider The Great Plague, typhoid, syphilis, cholera or even influenza etc. Cities were devastated but the sparsely populated countryside survived because there was very little likelihood of contact between the carrier and the rest of the poplation. Remember "Decameron"? The only hope to survive was to leave the city (and, perhaps, have a bit of fun in the process )

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by ariel

I As to urbanization as a cause of strenghtened immunity, tell the author to consider The Great Plague, typhoid, syphilis, cholera or even influenza etc. Cities were devastated but the sparsely populated countryside survived because there was very little likelihood of contact between the carrier and the rest of the poplation. Remember "Decameron"? The only hope to survive was to leave the city (and, perhaps, have a bit of fun in the process )

The people that gave him the Pulitzer for that book likely don't share your point of view.
The Author was referring to minor deseases. You're quoting the "black death", the greatest of all. being you a brain surgeon you should have studied what south american indios and austrlian aborignous suffered for deseases le ft ther from with people. That's what the author refers to, but without reading the book, you can't get the whole picture.

Anyway I'm disgressing and just to support your point.
I'll return on topic.