True Combat Value of Wootz

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ariel,

Originally Posted by ariel

Chris,
I have a question: even at the height of wootz reputation European blades were very popular in India, Arabia, Caucasus etc. Marks of Styrian or British manufacturers were highly sought. Things went so far that the local swordsmiths started to counterfeight European markings far more often than Assadullah's, even though they could do either.
What does it tell us about the perceived value of the European blades in the "Eastern" societies? Does it mean that in the eyes of the native populations a sword marked Fringia or Genoa was more desirable and, by definition, better than Assadollah's?
One could say that making a wootz sword was much more time consuming and, thus, counterfeighting European blades made better economic sense. However, we see many rather low-to-mediocre quality non-wootz swords bearing (fake) signatures of Assadullah or Kalbeali. Superhigh quality was never on the mind of a faker.
Did the native warriors know something about the battle value of Persian/Indian blades vs. European ones that we do not?

You pose a very good question and one which I cannot answer, save for making an educated guess.

With Japanese blades we do know that the best were superb, but those produced in quantity for their feudal armies were nowhere as good . This in all probability explains why some swords acquired a legendary reputation. I imagine that perhaps the same applied to wootz swords; Those that were well made were unquestionably of excellent quality, but probably the run of the mill not anywhere as good - This because even if the raw steel used was top class, it could stilll be easily ruined by bad forging.

My intuition tells me that Euro military swords of the period were probably of a higher average quality. My guess is that once Euro sword blades were manufactured in factories, as opposed to village smithies, and in conformity with tried and tested procedures, the quality became much higher and more consistent.

However this may be, steel quality is one factor and sword shape and dimensions another. If a soldier thinks that the swords of his enemies are of a superior design, then he will covet them, even if the steel that they are made from is not all that outstanding. Wellington, Murat, San Martin and a quite a number of other famous cavalry generals preferred Eastern swords during the Napoleonic era, simply because they perceived that their hilts and curved blades were better suited for that kind of combat.

In this regard, it is worth remembering that on all accounts the Japanese sword made for a very poor mounted weapon (they never understood cavalry). Similarly, despite the above mentioned infatuation that the Europeans had for Far Eastern sabres in the early 1800s, by the middle of the 19th century they were completely superseded by better performing patterns. So maybe, at some point in time Easterners as well figured that Euro swords were of a better design.

Cheers
Chris

[Rivkin]

First of all I completely agree with Dr. Lee is his assesment of Victorian researchers. My opinion is however that since then we gone completely downhill. Victorians at least where honest and not afraid to call things as they see them, and this was typically done after being deeply involved with the subject. I would say what I think about modern experts (Rice, Said and wikipedia) but then you would have to ban me .

Concerning any comparisons - how and what are we going to compare ? A 1000 frenchman would always defeat 1500 mamluks, but 1 mamluk would always defeat 1 frenchman, as the great Emperor once said. Do we compare western armies to japanese or a single european lowly private to a samurai ? Or a european expert in epee fencing to a samurai ? Do we compare swords as part of the military doctrine or as a one-on-one weapon ?

As was noted by David Ayalon, the real victory westerners achieved first and primaraly at sea - even with a short lived Ottoman attempt to revive their sea power, East could never outsail the West. So the most important weapon of the West was actually a ship. The combat between western and eastern cavalries was exceedingly rare and therefore sword and sword fight was largely a fantasy and "what if" scenario. Western swords were nevertheless deeply renowned for their quality since the time of gurda.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Rivkin,

Originally Posted by Rivkin

First of all I completely agree with Dr. Lee is his assesment of Victorian researchers. My opinion is however that since then we gone completely downhill. Victorians at least where honest and not afraid to call things as they see them, and this was typically done after being deeply involved with the subject. I would say what I think about modern experts (Rice, Said and wikipedia) but then you would have to ban me ..

I am not quite sure as to what you are getting at, but if what you mean is that the current crop of "experts" (on matters of swords, swordsmanship and olden weaponry) leave a lot to be desired, then I am totally with you.

Concerning any comparisons - how and what are we going to compare ? A 1000 frenchman would always defeat 1500 mamluks, but 1 mamluk would always defeat 1 frenchman, as the great Emperor once said. Do we compare western armies to japanese or a single european lowly private to a samurai ? Or a european expert in epee fencing to a samurai ? Do we compare swords as part of the military doctrine or as a one-on-one weapon ?.

Of course - A duelist, no matter how good, a soldier does not make. Such comparisons are futile exercises, but may I say fun? And possibly educational along the way as well, because it compels one to think about many other matters.

As was noted by David Ayalon, the real victory westerners achieved first and primaraly at sea - even with a short lived Ottoman attempt to revive their sea power, East could never outsail the West. So the most important weapon of the West was actually a ship. .

The ability to wage war successfully is reflection of the soundness of the whole of society. Its economy, laws social organization, wealth, culture, science, etc. Modern wars are not won or lost by the actions of skilled heroes armed with superb weapons, rather by team work using easily manufactured and replaceable, though serviceable weapons. To focus excessively on the weapons themselves is counterproductive. One sees the tress well, but fails to understand their role in the forest as a whole.This something that we, as collectors, are all too often guilty of.

The combat between western and eastern cavalries was exceedingly rare and therefore sword and sword fight was largely a fantasy and "what if" scenario.

Well, perhaps not as frequent as commonly imagined, but neither was it rare. Throughout the Victorian colonial wars, the Brits clashed a number of times with Easterners. The tragic Captain Nolan, associated with the charge of the Light Brigade, formulated his opinions re cavalry in India....

Western swords were nevertheless deeply renowned for their quality since the time of gurda.

I think that before the industrial revolution, their quality must have varied greatly. After that, they became much more uniform and on average better, though not exceptional. The military sabres that I still have in my collection, from the middle of the 19th century, are basic and unsophisticated but perfectly serviceably weapons. Ideal to equip an army with.

Cheers
Chris

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

... since the time of gurda.

Rivkin, may I ask, whats a gurda? Ive been hearing it from the mouths of too many saudis.

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

With Japanese blades we do know that the best were superb, but those produced in quantity for their feudal armies were nowhere as good . ...OMISSIS...However this may be, steel quality is one factor and sword shape and dimensions another. ...OMISSIS...In this regard, it is worth remembering that on all accounts the Japanese sword made for a very poor mounted weapon (they never understood cavalry).

Hi Chris. You're right about mass-produced swords (Kazuuchimono) made in certain periods of japanese history, and I agree about the many different
variables that are into the equation to make a good sword, being the swordsmith, material, shape and dimensions the most known.

But what is really far by reality and by serious studies is the statement that japanese blades were poor mounted weapon. The reason of the curvature of NihonTo is exactly the use from horseback. Japanese switched from straight blades (Chokuto shape inherited from China) to curved swords during the fightning against Emishi in the very early of unifing the nation. These populations of central Japan (Kanto plains) weren't influenced by chinese culture and had developed an horseback fighting style with bow and curved
swords. Tactics and weapons proved to be so good that the chinese style of fighting in footsoldiers formation was replaced by the Emeshi's one following the military principle of counter-response and symmetry in order to achieve victory against these populations. Warabite-To (ancestral Tachi) and bow (that later begun the Yumi, disaxed japanese bow) were the heritage such populations left to early Samurai. see "Heavenly warriors - the evolution of japan's military a.D. 500-1300" by William Wayne Farris, Harvard Univeristy Press, ISBN 0 674 38704 X.
A compromise to maintain some stabbing function in a curved cavalry sword was made for centuries putting the curvature in the very first part of the blade, leaving the upper part almost straight.
Japanese way to use cavalry was different from alòmost any other outside Japan but sthis doesn't mean they never understood cavalry. This is a simplicistic statement that forget historical and geographical conditions in which japanese horsefighting evolved. Japanese understood cavalry according to their needs, that's a lot different then stating they didn't understed it at all.

[Chris Evans]

Hi tsubame1,

The merits or otherwise of the Japanese sword, when used from horseback, is a digression from this thread, which is about the combat value of wootz. So perhaps we ought to pursue this by PM or start another thread.

1. With the above said, I would like to make the following observations:

a) A two handed sword is ill suited for mounted combat because it is preferable to leave one hand free to hold the reins with which to control the horse - Also the long handle gets in the way and its general shape is ill suited to the retention of the sword - It is significant that in the rest of Asia, the Middle East and Europe the single hand sword prevailed for mounted warfare;

b) Europeans were quick to adopt the curved sabre of the Middle East for light cavalry work, towards the end of the 18th century. By that time they were well acquainted with the Japanese sword, yet ignored it for military usage. Had it been a good weapon for mounted combat, am sure that it would not have been so overlooked - And by that time nobody understood cavalry, both heavy and light, better than the Europeans; And

c) when Japan modernized during the Meiji restoration European sabres and cavalry methods were adopted. Indeed, all Asian nations that modernized took similar steps. This was due to very compelling reasons.

2. Re understanding cavalry: I am sure that within the limited context of their own insular and feudal style of waging war, up to the Tokugawas, the Japanese understood the usefulness of cavalry to a degree- However, in a wider context, they lagged far behind other nations - There is far more to cavalry than being able to ride; For one, it has been observed that they lacked a true war horse and the terrain of Japan did not encourage mounted warfare, as say the vast expanses of Central Asia.

After the Tokugawas Japan ceased to be a nation of warriors and became a police state. Whilst the rest of the world was developing militarily, the Shogunate was terrified of any bellicose capability by the clans, lest the civil wars erupt again; The samurai were reduced to the role of policemen, never having to do anything more serious than put down the odd peasant uprising and control the plebes. Such a state of affairs was not conducive to the development of armaments and tactics, be it afoot, horseback or at sea.

Cheers
Chris

[Rivkin]

1. Modern vs. ancient history.
I like ancient chronicles. Take for example Safavid ones - we came, slaughtered all unbelievers, took their women, and btw their women are way more beautiful than local girls (actually stronger words are used in the original). Simple, honest, straightforward.
Today we have what Burton warned about - everyone's history starts with 100 pages of "do you that it was our people who really invented ..." and ends with 100 pages of "we are the biggest victims in the world". No, african-american Garret Morgan did not invent a gas mask, russian peasant Mihailo Lomonosov did not discovery special relativity, automobil is not an islamic invention of XIIIth century and the number pi is not coded in talmud (they simply used 3).

2. Russian cavalry test involved two tests - one was cutting (could not find any description of what was cut) another one was bending to the limit of elastic deformation (i.e. the sword does not return to the original shape).

Gurda - it is a mark in the form of two jaws. The origin most likely is Venitian swords, later jaws acquire meaning "eisenhower" - chews iron. In caucasus gurda is also associated with chechen "gorda" - sort of battle cry, translates as "see !".

3. Dr. Feuerbach - any islamic country subscribing to the pact of Umar or its variations must ban non-muslims from pocessions of any weapons. It is a rather important part of fikh and dhimmi/muslim relationship.

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

a) A two handed sword is ill suited for mounted combat because it is preferable to leave one hand free to hold the reins with which to control the horse - Also the long handle gets in the way and its general shape is ill suited to the retention of the sword - It is significant that in the rest of Asia, the Middle East and Europe the single hand sword prevailed for mounted warfare;

Tachi isn't a two-handed sword, Katana is. Find out the difference and you'll realize where you're wrong here.

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

b) Europeans were quick to adopt the curved sabre of the Middle East for light cavalry work, towards the end of the 18th century. By that time they were well acquainted with the Japanese sword, yet ignored it for military usage. Had it been a good weapon for mounted combat, am sure that it would not have been so overlooked - And by that time nobody understood cavalry, both heavy and light, better than the Europeans;

Because at that time the Katana had begun a dueling sword. Here we're in Edo time, no more wars to fight, rather duels. Hence the scarce fitting of the Katana to actual western needs.

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

c) when Japan modernized during the Meiji restoration European sabres and cavalry methods were adopted. Indeed, all Asian nations that modernized took similar steps. This was due to very compelling reasons.

The very compelling reasons were that a dueling Katana that reigned
for the 250 years of the Edojidai wasn't suited for modern battlefield cavalry
tactis. You're comparing a sword "freezed" for centuries to a modern army.
In this way is obvious that even armor and helmets were no more useful even if they were carried till a few decades before.
BTW you lack to quote that many swords in the so-called "Kyugunto" mounting (the western-style you refer to) had ancestral blade inside.
Is more a matter of mounting rather then blade shape.
It's easy to find asking any average collector out there or taking a look at
Fuller and Gregory's "Military swords of Japan 1868-1945" ISBN 0 85368 796 X

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

. Re understanding cavalry: I am sure that within the limited context of their own insular and feudal style of waging war, up to the Tokugawas, the Japanese understood the usefulness of cavalry to a degree- However, in a wider context, they lagged far behind other nations - There is far more to cavalry than being able to ride; For one, it has been observed that they lacked a true war horse and the terrain of Japan did not encourage mounted warfare, as say the vast expanses of Central Asia.

Rough terrain and lack of space for horsebreeding.
These are the reasons they didn't apply vast cavalry charges as we're used to think about. This is not lack of understanding, this is lack of needs.

I agree we're out of topic and warmly suggest you to open another thread on
the matter if you want to discuss further this very interesting matter.

[ariel]

If I understand correctly, we can summarize that:
1. Wootz is esthetically more attractive than the mass-produces European steel blades.
2. Only small proportion of "Eastern" blades were of exceedingly high quality and many, manufactured not by reknown masters, were of dubious quality.
3.European technology allowed mass production of high-quality steel. The overall performance characteristics of European blades were either close enough or similar to the best wootz blades. Advantages of wootz in some areas were compensated by the advantages of European steel in other areas. Overall, European technology allowed arming large groups of soldiers with reliable equipment of uniformly-proven quality, a task that was unattainable in less techological societies.
4. Local preferences, prestige issues, personal "quirks" etc were important in dictating the choice in some cases, and this occured both among the "Natives" as well as among the " Europeans".
Is it fair?

[tsubame1]

Not a bad conclusion Ariel, but we should consider timeframe.
Noone here has fixed a timeframe of reference.
IMHO some of your conclusions can be considered quiet fair talking about later times, say XVIII c. >, not as an overall rule.
Around the XVI/XVII c. Milan had a very good production of blades, many
being later labeled as "Toledo" ones, but I can't talk for the major cities of the middle east and India. If the mogul were able to equipe an entire army with guns in which the barrel was made of wootz, I assume that a sort of industrial capability was there too. We're thinking with present-day standards
in which materials are cheap and skilled labour expensive, whether in the centuries I quoted, and more in the timeframe before, it was the reverse.
I think that skilled labour for steelmaking wasn't an issue to the Mogul or the persians. As the real difference in the quality of a sword is the maker and not the steel, I'm not so sure that an industrial mass-production is really a point to fix superiority of western steel over wootz.
To be thruly honest, I don't think that there are steels superior to others.
Only smiths. Well, within certain limits fixed by common sense of course.

[Tim Simmons]

Well you cannot make a silk purse out of a pigs ear

[Chris Evans]

Originally Posted by tsubame1

Tachi isn't a two-handed sword, Katana is. Find out the difference and you'll realize where you're wrong here..

In all the serious literature that I have seen, the distinction between the Tachi and the katana is about how they were worn/slung and not about hilt length. Tachi edge down, katana edge up. And I have never seen a tachi or katana with a one hand hilt nor any suggestion to this effect.

From Wikipedia:

The tachi (??) is a Japanese sword, often said to be more curved and slightly longer than the katana. However Gilbertson, Oscar Ratti, and Adele Westbrook state that a sword is called a tachi when hung from the obi with the edge down, and the same sword becomes a katana when hung edge up thrust through the girdle. The Tachi style was eventually discarded in favor of the Katana. The daito (long swords) that pre-date the katana average about 78cm in blade length, next to the katana average of around 70cm. As opposed to the traditional manner of wearing the katana, the tachi was worn hung from the belt with the cutting-edge down, and usually used by cavalry. Deviations from the average length of tachi have the prefixes ko- for "short" and o- for "great" attached. For instance, tachi that were shoto and closer in size to a wakizashi were called "kodachi". The longest tachi (considered a 15th century odachi) in existence is more than 3.7 meters in total length (2.2m blade) but believed to be ceremonial. During the year 1600, many old tachi were cut down into Katana. The majority of surviving tachi blades now are o-suriage, so it is rare to see an original signed ubu tachi.

Form The Connoisseurs Book Of Japanese Swords by Kokan Nagayama:

Tachi: This is a curved sword with a blade longer than 60cm. It was worn suspended from the belt with the blade edge facing the ground. Later some blades originally produced as tachi were converted into katana by shortening the tang (or the portion of the blade that extends below the hamachi) This process inevitably caused any signature to be lost. Blades longer than 90cm are known as o-dachi (long tachi) while those 60cm or shorter are known as ko-dachi (short tachi)......Katana: Have blades longer than 60cm and are worn through the belt with the cutting edge facing upwards

I could give a number of other citations from respected authorities, but for lack of space will refrain from doing so. However, I'll add that the only Japanese native long-sword that I am aware of that was used with one hand (according to some sources) was the uchigatana, which appeared late in the Muromachi period. It complemented the Tachi when fighting afoot and is considered the precursor of the katana, as was worn edge up.

That the double handed grip was a handicap was recognized by the legendary Musashi in 1645 when he wrote"...It is encumbering to hold a sword with both hands when you are on horseback..."(Book of Five Rings). Note that Musashi was trying to correct the then prevailing practices, perhaps being influenced by Europeans

.

"Kyugunto" mounting (the western-style you refer to) had ancestral blade inside. Is more a matter of mounting rather then blade shape.
It's easy to find asking any average collector out there or taking a look at
Fuller and Gregory's "Military swords of Japan 1868-1945" ISBN 0 85368 796 X ..

It will do us well to remember that the Tokugawas curtailed the maximum length of blades so as to prevent warfare and most long tachis were cut down to fit in with the peace time requirements. By the Meiji restoration most katanas were of the order of 70cm, considered to be the standard length. So if we examine the bulk of those strange swords, with a knuckle-bow attached to their longish hilts, we will find a rather short blade - Totally unsuited for mounted use.

Additionally, the tang of the Japanese blade follows the curvature of the blade and makes it impossible to fit a downward drooping hilt, as was generally considered desirable in a cavalry weapon by that era. The downward drooping hilt is essential when using the point as when the arm is extended the curved blade's point is aligned with the axis of the arm.

..

Rough terrain and lack of space for horsebreeding.
These are the reasons they didn't apply vast cavalry charges as we're used to think about. This is not lack of understanding, this is lack of needs...

To my mind lack of needs equates with lack of application, which equates with lack of experience and thus of understanding.

agree we're out of topic and warmly suggest you to open another thread onthe matter if you want to discuss further this very interesting matter.

Happy to oblige by PM, unless other forumites want to join in, in which case we will open a fresh thread.

Cheers
Chris

[S.Al-Anizi]

Guys, please open up another thread for a japanese showdown, not here

[tsubame1]

You're right Carter. Sorry for inconveniences caused.

Deleted to open another thread :

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...5127#post35127

[Ann Feuerbach]

From S. AL-Anizi: Not necessarily Ann, in pre-islamic arabian poetry, swords and their 'firind' are always being described and emphasized upon. Wootz is a very older thing than many people think it is. The more I read, the more it seems that wootz blades were quite common since pre-islam in the near east. Either being imported from india, or even locally produced in Yemen or even Damascus, although its very hard to prove that.

You are quite right. The earliest known crucible steel blade is from the 1st century AD (Taxila) and the 2nd and 3rd known earliest blades are from the Russian Caucausus, indicating that they were well in use before the coming of Islam. In my discussion, I was referring to the influx of swords during the 16th-17th centuries.


From Rivkin: any islamic country subscribing to the pact of Umar or its variations must ban non-muslims from pocessions of any weapons. It is a rather important part of fikh and dhimmi/muslim relationship.

Thank you I did not know what the correct term was. Yes, I am well aware of the ban of non-muslims having weapons during some periods of time (and place). However, sometimes (depending on the time and place) non-muslims were in the military (as mercinarys, slaves etc). I have forgotten the reference.

On another related note, apparently some blades were not used for battle so its performance was not a factor...such as one of the Prophets blades al-Qadib. It was made for companionship and defense only, but not for battle.

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by tsubame1

You're right Carter. Sorry for inconveniences caused.

Deleted to open another thread :

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...5127#post35127

No no not at all Carlos, I was getting quite interested in your conversation, you and Chris, ive always found Japanese swords quite controversial I just felt that deserved a sole thread for it, and I would gladly contribute to that thread if something pops up