True Combat Value of Wootz

[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.