ANCIENT Indian Weapons (B.C.)

olikara · 9th September 2007, 05:33 PM

Jim,
Your comments brought a couple of questions to my mind.

What could be the possible advantages of a warrior using a 2 handed sword?

He can use both the hands to grasp the hilt and thus bring more force into his action. This extra force delivered with a heavier weapon may be used to incapacitate/kill the opponent or maybe even damage/destroy the opponent's weapon. This is a POSITIVE.

But when he uses both his hands, he cannot make use of one hand to possibly hold a shield and deflect the opponents blow. He also loses his freedom of movement. The entire body is flexible when one hand is free. I feel this is a NEGATIVE.

How would you balance the two?

Maybe a warrior can use the Khanda or it's similar types for delivering a final blow on an incapacitated opponent, say like beheading him. But would it be practical for him to use a khanda against a lighter armed warrior using a single handed weapon?

Maybe I am missing something...

Jim McDougall · 10th September 2007, 07:12 AM

Hi Olikara,
Im glad to see you in on this!
You bring up a very interesting and quite valid question. It would seem that in most cases, these large two handed swords were most likely used in shock action, that is against attacking cavalry to bring down horses. In the melee these huge weapons would indeed be cumbersome and ineffective, and as you point out, the individual would be open to attack.
It would be interesting to hear the opinions of those well versed in the dynamics of martial arts swordplay on this.

Best regards,
Jim

9th September 2007, 05:33 PM	#1
olikara Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: India Posts: 101	Two Handed Swords Jim, Your comments brought a couple of questions to my mind. What could be the possible advantages of a warrior using a 2 handed sword? He can use both the hands to grasp the hilt and thus bring more force into his action. This extra force delivered with a heavier weapon may be used to incapacitate/kill the opponent or maybe even damage/destroy the opponent's weapon. This is a POSITIVE. But when he uses both his hands, he cannot make use of one hand to possibly hold a shield and deflect the opponents blow. He also loses his freedom of movement. The entire body is flexible when one hand is free. I feel this is a NEGATIVE. How would you balance the two? Maybe a warrior can use the Khanda or it's similar types for delivering a final blow on an incapacitated opponent, say like beheading him. But would it be practical for him to use a khanda against a lighter armed warrior using a single handed weapon? Maybe I am missing something...

10th September 2007, 07:12 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	Hi Olikara, Im glad to see you in on this! You bring up a very interesting and quite valid question. It would seem that in most cases, these large two handed swords were most likely used in shock action, that is against attacking cavalry to bring down horses. In the melee these huge weapons would indeed be cumbersome and ineffective, and as you point out, the individual would be open to attack. It would be interesting to hear the opinions of those well versed in the dynamics of martial arts swordplay on this. Best regards, Jim