Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 25th February 2007, 08:13 AM   #1
FenrisWolf
Member
 
FenrisWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 181
Default

One has to wonder how much of the difference also had to do with the weapons drill as taught to the different soldiers. There is a world of difference in the penetrating power of a simple hack cut, basically using the sword like a long, thin axe, and a drawcut which makes the best use of a blade's razorsharp edge.

Think about carving a roast or a turkey. Do you chop away at it, or do you slide the blade across the meat? (Well, I've seen a few people use the cleaver method, but that neither here nor there...) Simple hacking will get through, but with ten times the effort; a drawcut, though, when done with a decent blade, will slide through like a hot knife through butter.

For the average British foot soldier the sword was definitely a secondary weapon, and I can't imagine that most of them had the chance to learn the fine art of the sword.
FenrisWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2007, 10:41 AM   #2
Jens Nordlunde
Member
 
Jens Nordlunde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
Default

Hi Katana,

This is a bit complicated. In the start, that is almost two thousand years ago, the Indian Sri Lankan steel was the one most sought after, and also the most expensive. It was exported to the west of the time,west Africa, Arabia, Egypt, Rome and so on, and later it was known as being better than even the Swedish steel which was very famous, but later again it seems as if the European steel was better sold, even in India, at least in the south and on the west coast. Part of this is may be due to the fact that the English forbade ingot making in big parts of Deccan due to deforesting – or maybe the reason was, to be able to sell more blades to the Indians, it is hard to know which version is the right one.

I think you are right, when you write that many, those who could afford it, had their own weapons made, to suite their size and ability, weapons that were treasured in the family, which were inherited from farther to son, but there were still a lot of swords made for the armories – and they would be common size – or whatever you would call it. Read Hindu Arms and Ritual by Robert Elgood, chapter one and you will see the different ways the Indians and the Europeans regarded swords.

Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 25th February 2007 at 12:43 PM.
Jens Nordlunde is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.