Questions about Mr. Khorasani's lecture

ariel · 1st October 2006, 09:28 PM

As part of my reading of the book" Arms and Armor in Iran", I watched the video of Mr. Khorasani's lecture at the Iranian Study Group http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...03819897907514
In this lecture he made three points that puzzled me, and I would like to be educated.
1. He says that the Roman Gladius Hispaniensis was a purely stabbing weapon and that Roman soldiers were forbidden to use it for slashing. Gladius was a double-edged sword; if it was intended to use as a purely stabbing weapon, what was the purpose of sharp edges? What soldier would even bother to sharpen the sword if the regulations forbade him to use it for slashing? Even Wickipedia cites Livy attesting to the slashing use of the Gladius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius
2. He also asserts that the British cavalry was divided into "stabbing" units and the "slashing" ones. The "stabbers" used straight swords that were known as "wristbreakers".
My impression was that the " Wristbreaker" was not a British straight-bladed sword ( palasch), but an American, pattern 1840, curved cavalry saber.
http://www.nps.gov/archive/fosc/weapons_info1.htm
3. He said that ancient Iranian art of casting bronze swords represented an incredibly sophisticated technique that cannot be reproduced even now. He challenged any MIT scientist or engineer to cast a similar sword.
It seems to me that over the centuries, bronze casting was very wide spread all over the world and that many bronze swords of a quality not lower than the old Iranian ones were made in many societies, including even almost-contemporary Africa. Further, thousands of bronze cannons and sculptures were cast (seemingly a more challenging task than a straight sword), cast bronze figurines of very intricate designs are sold in our local K-Mart and Wall Mart and hundreds of bronze swords are offered on E-bay from China on a daily basis. What was so special about Iranian bronze swords that MIT-trained engineers cannot repeat?

Taking into account Mr. Khorasani's impeccable reputation as a "sword maven", I cannot believe that his statements were based on anything but academic rigor, deep knowledge and utmost scientific integrity.
Thus, it is I who must be wrong.
Please explain to me where am I making mistakes?

Rivkin · 2nd October 2006, 04:37 PM

Ok, since no one seems to comment... I actually liked Manoucher's lecture, I did find it very informative and concise. Concerning the points - may be he used slightly stronger phrases than he should have, I mean I don't disagree with the principle that there was a competition between stabbing and slashing cavalry techniques, that ancient bronze is not as well studied as it could have been and that gladius is primaraly a stabbing weapon. Now, details may be slightly off.

fernando · 3rd October 2006, 09:51 PM

I have once read that, the discussion had in Rome about the Gladius was to which ( optional ) function it sould have in their Forces, due to its dual possibilities. The stabbing party won the discussion, and the Gladius was appointed to Infantry. Maybe this meant that training was more directed to stabbing, but this doesn't exclude contextual slashing use on the field.
Titus Livius has also writen "Hispano punctim magis quam caesim adsueto petere hostem", meaning that this sword was so good for stabbing as for cutting ( in a home made translation ).
I have also read in a Portuguese Forum that, this tongue shaped Celtiberian origin sword, was well balanced for both stabbing and cutting, whereas its Roman Pompei evolution (?) with a paralel blade, was more of a stabbing weapon, although the reason for change was a an economic one ( easier = cheapper ), more than tactical. But this was much later on.

mross · 4th October 2006, 10:00 PM

Take a look at this;

http://romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_...le_tactics.htm

I can see how the thrust is more useful but certainly not the only way to use this sword. I find it very hard to believe that any commander would catagorically restrict his troops use of a weapon. However if you are in the turtle I would think your fellow troops would not be fond of you swinging away. So I think perhaps the language may have been too strong or the reference was taken out of context. All in all the book looks intresting, but I think I'll see if it shows up on half.com.

Bugeisha · 5th October 2006, 12:06 AM

Hi Ariel,

Thanks for posting that link. I really enjoyed that lecture. Lots of great information. I really got to get my hands on his book, LOL!

You bring up some good points. Now as far as the 1st statement, there is valid points on both sides. Why would it have an edge (double edge at that) when its only use is for thrusting? Good question... I have read a lot of your posts, I know your savy to arms. One thing that remains is the tactics used by the Roman army, and that is discribed by Manoucher very well. This juggernuat of scutum and gladiuses, if you will, is highly effective but requires mass amount of teamwork. Teamwork, I beleive, was the key to Roman success. If you have a gap from someone trying to do their own thing, i.e. slashing, it would cause an opening in your line of defense. It seems very probable to me that the Romans were taught to fight a certain way for tactical reasons. Even to this day martial arts are taught in a specific way, i.e. stike this way, not like that. If you were in the front line, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield, would you want the infantry guys on both sides of you swinging their swords? I know I wouldn't, lol. Thinking in that light, its very easy to beleive that Roman soldiers were forbidden from trying to slash the opponent. On the flip side of the coin, an induvidual fight could not be fought the same as a large scale battle. Altough, I do believe underlining priciples would be the same. Manoucher said something in the lecture that I believe would have value now. In Kenjutsu you are taught to block or parry with the side or the back of blade, never the edge of the sword. Its forbidden in most ryuha. I also learned from Toby Threadgill if something happens and it comes down to a choice of getting cut or blocking with the edge of the sword. Block with the edge, at least you will live.
I feel the same way about the Gladius. Its a thrusting weapon intended to do so, but if all hell breaks loose, survive. Would I say that the gladius was only a thrusting weapon? No, but I think thats what made it famous.

As far as the question about wristbreakers. When I watched the lecture, Manoucher said that the motion of trying to stab a hard target from horse back caused "a wristbreaking motion". He didn't call them "wristbreakers". The audio from the website wasn't that great, though.

As far as the bronze challenge to the guys at MIT. I don't know too much about bronze or casting, but from my impression it sounded like Manoucher was referring to the casting processes. I'm really not too sure about this one.

Thanks for the thread!
Jahun

tsubame1 · 6th October 2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeisha

As far as the question about wristbreakers. When I watched the lecture, Manoucher said that the motion of trying to stab a hard target from horse back caused "a wristbreaking motion". He didn't call them "wristbreakers". The audio from the website wasn't that great, though.

Depends on what you want to ear...

fernando · 5th October 2006, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Titus Livius has also writen "Hispano punctim magis quam caesim adsueto petere hostem", meaning that this sword was so good for stabbing as for cutting ( in a home made translation )

.
Well, that was a lousy translation i got. This was the batlle of Cannes and, in a documented translation the phrase means that the gladii used by the Hispanos, whom were used to thrusting rather than cutting, were short, thus handy, and also pointy.

Justin · 6th October 2006, 12:09 AM

This is only my opinion, but I find it hard to believe that in our sophisticated modern age,there were ancient bronze casting techniques that cant be replicated now.Not only have we made massive technological advances in casting but many modern techniques are directly descended from ancient ones.Sometimes the biggest difference can be the modern materials used now alloys,casting medium, ect while the process itself is basically the same.

B.I · 6th October 2006, 09:48 AM

in my opinion, i dont think early persian casting surpassed that of 16thC india, which incorprated techniques still used today (in india or course). not saying indian work was better, but was easily the equal in techinique and quality, and many centuries later.
i have seen the lecture and i feel that he was promoting all things persia, using slight exaggeration. nothing wrong with this. i have a dealer friend that i share a regular joke with. each piece he shows me is ''the best in the world''. he doesnt actually mean this, he just means his piece is pretty bloody good.
so, i feel the lecturer meant that persian casting was of a high quality, which he expressed by saying it was the ''best in the world''.
just a salesmans pitch. maybe he is on commission from the iranian tourist board? (joke!!! please dont anyone get offended!!)

Doug M · 6th October 2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

1. He says that the Roman Gladius Hispaniensis was a purely stabbing weapon and that Roman soldiers were forbidden to use it for slashing. Gladius was a double-edged sword; if it was intended to use as a purely stabbing weapon, what was the purpose of sharp edges? What soldier would even bother to sharpen the sword if the regulations forbade him to use it for slashing? Even Wickipedia cites Livy attesting to the slashing use of the Gladius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius

This is taken from Christopher Amberger from The Secret History of the Sword, page 162, based on "De re militarii" by the Roman author Flavius Vegetius Renarus (who wrote around A.D. 490):

"They were likewise taught not to cut, but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. Astroke with the edges, though made ever with so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bone and armor. On the contrary, a stab, although it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal."

Rivkin · 6th October 2006, 05:04 PM

There is a huge difference between "taught not to" and "prohibited to". I am probably going to repear myself saying that the lecture was a good one (in my opinion); also, lectures are obviously not something that is being edited/reviewed by others, but to some extent is a spontaneous event.

ariel · 6th October 2006, 05:25 PM

If slashing is so ineffective, Persian Shamshir would be the ultimate example of a useless weapon. The weapon most similar to the Roman Gladius (Caucasian Kindjal) was used mainly for slashing.
Also, whether Roman legionnaires occasionally used Gladius for slashing is not relevant: in the heat of the battle they probably smashed their enemies with sword handles

The point is that Gladius was constructed as a a double-edged sword. Thus, the slashing function was "built in" from the outset. With that in mind , any argument in favor of it's purely-stabbing function is plain silly.
Smallsword is a pure stabber, Omani Kattara (with a rounded point) is a pure slasher. Gladius was designed to do both.

Doug M · 6th October 2006, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

If slashing is so ineffective, Persian Shamshir would be the ultimate example of a useless weapon. The weapon most similar to the Roman Gladius (Caucasian Kindjal) was used mainly for slashing.

You are presenting a straw man argument. Who else here has claimed that "slashing is so ineffective"?

Quote:

Also, whether Roman legionnaires occasionally used Gladius for slashing is not relevant: in the heat of the battle they probably smashed their enemies with sword handles

Sorry, but it is "relevant."

Quote:

The point is that Gladius was constructed as a a double-edged sword. Thus, the slashing function was "built in" from the outset. With that in mind , any argument in favor of it's purely-stabbing function is plain silly.

Are you a martial artist? Have you any experience with sparring with a weapon that has both a sharp point and edge (historical, accurate training, not fencing, wushu, or anything that is sport related)? Based on a weapon's characteristics, one will find use for everything if one explores the weapon carefully. But just because a weapon has both does not mean it will be used equally for cutting and thrusting. You mentioned the shamshir: it can cut and thrust, but will it be used more to cut than thrust? How about a niuweidao? How about a grosse messer? Simply because a tool has multiple functions does not mean it will be used to operate such functions all the time or even half the time. Assuming the position of equality here "is plain silly."

Quote:

Smallsword is a pure stabber, Omani Kattara (with a rounded point) is a pure slasher. Gladius was designed to do both.

You have just compared apples, oranges, and bananas, each with a different purpose. Making an assumption about any of them without knowing for certain what that purpose was is, in your words, silly. I could do half-swording techniques with a dao, but I have yet to find such a technique verified by history. Just because a gladius could cut does not mean it was always used.

tsubame1 · 6th October 2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

the Roman Gladius Hispaniensis was a purely stabbing weapon and that Roman soldiers were forbidden to use it for slashing. Gladius was a double-edged sword; if it was intended to use as a purely stabbing weapon, what was the purpose of sharp edges?

Katana is a purely slashing weapon but still has a Kissaki (point).
Romans were trained to avoid to slash IN THIGT FORMATIONS as they usually fought. It's not so unbelivable to think that they were forbidden in such an action WHEN STILL IN THIGHT FORMATION even if i've no evidences of such. Another world is in the heat of the caos. I believe that no army ever had definitive rules in such a carnage, Samurai included.
Japaneses almost abandoned the Naginata (a slashing halberd) in favour of the Yari (a piercing spear) because of the change to tight formations tactics.
Limbs of your side fellows aren't a valid target.
Seems strange to me you aren't able to see the obvious advantages of sharpened edge on a purely stabbing weapon.
An armor piercing arrow bounce away from a multi-layer (padded enough...)
vest but a stabbing sword with sharpened edges pierce it easly. This is the reason because of thick padded vests were worn ON chainmail, NOT under.
The vest stops the arrow enough to permit the chainmail to easily stop it. Sharp edges helps you in the piercing of targets not strong as chainmail.
It's a matter of how phisics act and which type of target you have.
Every japanese spear I've seen (and are not few) has sharpened edges,
even if with very short triangular blades (obviously as sharp as such a geometry allows...). The same for the very short and thick "Yoroidoshi"
japanese armor piercing daggers so thick to have a triangular look.
Still sharpened on the edge.

You mentioned Shamshir... I've seen some with double edge on the point.
I wonder how much it is intended for armonic balance and to fix COP instead
of purely for cutting purposes. Thinking about the purpose of sharpened edges in a wider manner might be useful.

ariel · 6th October 2006, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsubame1

Katana is a purely slashing weapon but still has a Kissaki (point).
.

This is quite an interesting statement....
In the book by Nick Suino "Art Of Japanese Swordsmanship: Manual Of Eishin-Ryu Iaido" there are many descriptions and graphic step-by-step illustrations of routines when katana was used for stabbing. The same is true about Ratti/Westbrook's book " Secrets of the samurai".
I think you are mistaken: Kissaki was put there for a purpose and katana, although a preferentially slashing weapon, could be (and was) used for efficient stabbing due to its low curvature.
As to stabbing with highly curved shamshir, we have no evidence that it was ever intended or used for stabbing except for a general testimonial of Mr. Khorasani that there were special techniques. I tried to "stab" with a properly curved shamshir and couldn't. Was it supposed to go around the enemy's shield?

Please provide contemporary graphic evidence, I would really appreciate it.

1st October 2006, 09:28 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Questions about Mr. Khorasani's lecture As part of my reading of the book" Arms and Armor in Iran", I watched the video of Mr. Khorasani's lecture at the Iranian Study Group http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...03819897907514 In this lecture he made three points that puzzled me, and I would like to be educated. 1. He says that the Roman Gladius Hispaniensis was a purely stabbing weapon and that Roman soldiers were forbidden to use it for slashing. Gladius was a double-edged sword; if it was intended to use as a purely stabbing weapon, what was the purpose of sharp edges? What soldier would even bother to sharpen the sword if the regulations forbade him to use it for slashing? Even Wickipedia cites Livy attesting to the slashing use of the Gladius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius 2. He also asserts that the British cavalry was divided into "stabbing" units and the "slashing" ones. The "stabbers" used straight swords that were known as "wristbreakers". My impression was that the " Wristbreaker" was not a British straight-bladed sword ( palasch), but an American, pattern 1840, curved cavalry saber. http://www.nps.gov/archive/fosc/weapons_info1.htm 3. He said that ancient Iranian art of casting bronze swords represented an incredibly sophisticated technique that cannot be reproduced even now. He challenged any MIT scientist or engineer to cast a similar sword. It seems to me that over the centuries, bronze casting was very wide spread all over the world and that many bronze swords of a quality not lower than the old Iranian ones were made in many societies, including even almost-contemporary Africa. Further, thousands of bronze cannons and sculptures were cast (seemingly a more challenging task than a straight sword), cast bronze figurines of very intricate designs are sold in our local K-Mart and Wall Mart and hundreds of bronze swords are offered on E-bay from China on a daily basis. What was so special about Iranian bronze swords that MIT-trained engineers cannot repeat? Taking into account Mr. Khorasani's impeccable reputation as a "sword maven", I cannot believe that his statements were based on anything but academic rigor, deep knowledge and utmost scientific integrity. Thus, it is I who must be wrong. Please explain to me where am I making mistakes? Last edited by ariel; 1st October 2006 at 09:48 PM.

5th October 2006, 12:06 AM	#5
Bugeisha Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1	great lecture Hi Ariel, Thanks for posting that link. I really enjoyed that lecture. Lots of great information. I really got to get my hands on his book, LOL! You bring up some good points. Now as far as the 1st statement, there is valid points on both sides. Why would it have an edge (double edge at that) when its only use is for thrusting? Good question... I have read a lot of your posts, I know your savy to arms. One thing that remains is the tactics used by the Roman army, and that is discribed by Manoucher very well. This juggernuat of scutum and gladiuses, if you will, is highly effective but requires mass amount of teamwork. Teamwork, I beleive, was the key to Roman success. If you have a gap from someone trying to do their own thing, i.e. slashing, it would cause an opening in your line of defense. It seems very probable to me that the Romans were taught to fight a certain way for tactical reasons. Even to this day martial arts are taught in a specific way, i.e. stike this way, not like that. If you were in the front line, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield, would you want the infantry guys on both sides of you swinging their swords? I know I wouldn't, lol. Thinking in that light, its very easy to beleive that Roman soldiers were forbidden from trying to slash the opponent. On the flip side of the coin, an induvidual fight could not be fought the same as a large scale battle. Altough, I do believe underlining priciples would be the same. Manoucher said something in the lecture that I believe would have value now. In Kenjutsu you are taught to block or parry with the side or the back of blade, never the edge of the sword. Its forbidden in most ryuha. I also learned from Toby Threadgill if something happens and it comes down to a choice of getting cut or blocking with the edge of the sword. Block with the edge, at least you will live. I feel the same way about the Gladius. Its a thrusting weapon intended to do so, but if all hell breaks loose, survive. Would I say that the gladius was only a thrusting weapon? No, but I think thats what made it famous. As far as the question about wristbreakers. When I watched the lecture, Manoucher said that the motion of trying to stab a hard target from horse back caused "a wristbreaking motion". He didn't call them "wristbreakers". The audio from the website wasn't that great, though. As far as the bronze challenge to the guys at MIT. I don't know too much about bronze or casting, but from my impression it sounded like Manoucher was referring to the casting processes. I'm really not too sure about this one. Thanks for the thread! Jahun

6th October 2006, 05:04 PM	#11
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	There is a huge difference between "taught not to" and "prohibited to". I am probably going to repear myself saying that the lecture was a good one (in my opinion); also, lectures are obviously not something that is being edited/reviewed by others, but to some extent is a spontaneous event. Last edited by Rivkin; 6th October 2006 at 05:16 PM.

2nd October 2006, 04:37 PM	#2
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Ok, since no one seems to comment... I actually liked Manoucher's lecture, I did find it very informative and concise. Concerning the points - may be he used slightly stronger phrases than he should have, I mean I don't disagree with the principle that there was a competition between stabbing and slashing cavalry techniques, that ancient bronze is not as well studied as it could have been and that gladius is primaraly a stabbing weapon. Now, details may be slightly off.

3rd October 2006, 09:51 PM	#3
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,642	I have once read that, the discussion had in Rome about the Gladius was to which ( optional ) function it sould have in their Forces, due to its dual possibilities. The stabbing party won the discussion, and the Gladius was appointed to Infantry. Maybe this meant that training was more directed to stabbing, but this doesn't exclude contextual slashing use on the field. Titus Livius has also writen "Hispano punctim magis quam caesim adsueto petere hostem", meaning that this sword was so good for stabbing as for cutting ( in a home made translation ). I have also read in a Portuguese Forum that, this tongue shaped Celtiberian origin sword, was well balanced for both stabbing and cutting, whereas its Roman Pompei evolution (?) with a paralel blade, was more of a stabbing weapon, although the reason for change was a an economic one ( easier = cheapper ), more than tactical. But this was much later on.

4th October 2006, 10:00 PM	#4
mross Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 478	Take a look at this; http://romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_...le_tactics.htm I can see how the thrust is more useful but certainly not the only way to use this sword. I find it very hard to believe that any commander would catagorically restrict his troops use of a weapon. However if you are in the turtle I would think your fellow troops would not be fond of you swinging away. So I think perhaps the language may have been too strong or the reference was taken out of context. All in all the book looks intresting, but I think I'll see if it shows up on half.com.

6th October 2006, 12:09 AM	#8
Justin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 175	This is only my opinion, but I find it hard to believe that in our sophisticated modern age,there were ancient bronze casting techniques that cant be replicated now.Not only have we made massive technological advances in casting but many modern techniques are directly descended from ancient ones.Sometimes the biggest difference can be the modern materials used now alloys,casting medium, ect while the process itself is basically the same.

6th October 2006, 09:48 AM	#9
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	in my opinion, i dont think early persian casting surpassed that of 16thC india, which incorprated techniques still used today (in india or course). not saying indian work was better, but was easily the equal in techinique and quality, and many centuries later. i have seen the lecture and i feel that he was promoting all things persia, using slight exaggeration. nothing wrong with this. i have a dealer friend that i share a regular joke with. each piece he shows me is ''the best in the world''. he doesnt actually mean this, he just means his piece is pretty bloody good. so, i feel the lecturer meant that persian casting was of a high quality, which he expressed by saying it was the ''best in the world''. just a salesmans pitch. maybe he is on commission from the iranian tourist board? (joke!!! please dont anyone get offended!!)

6th October 2006, 05:25 PM	#12
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	If slashing is so ineffective, Persian Shamshir would be the ultimate example of a useless weapon. The weapon most similar to the Roman Gladius (Caucasian Kindjal) was used mainly for slashing. Also, whether Roman legionnaires occasionally used Gladius for slashing is not relevant: in the heat of the battle they probably smashed their enemies with sword handles The point is that Gladius was constructed as a a double-edged sword. Thus, the slashing function was "built in" from the outset. With that in mind , any argument in favor of it's purely-stabbing function is plain silly. Smallsword is a pure stabber, Omani Kattara (with a rounded point) is a pure slasher. Gladius was designed to do both.