Are there any known "lost arts"?

Factual Questions
141

I’m not sure how this turned into a sword debate, but I find the topic interesting enough, so here’s my thoughts.

Not knowing a great deal about either metallurgy or proper fencing techniques, I’m not going to delve into that erm…“whizzing” contest, so I’m going to take a slightly different tack on this. I think the general argument in favor of modern technology being able to surpass the ancient art of swordmaking is that we have better ingredients, methods, and knowledge for working with metal than we once did. Granted, we’ve lost a lot of the intuition and experience of actually making swords (i.e. knowing how to pole-vault is not at all the same as being able to pole-vault), but that’s a temporary problem that could be solved simply by practicing. It is my general experience with life, that better ingredients, methods, and knowledge always yields better results in the hands a reasonable person, no matter what the task.

Now, how much better those results are may be a huge quantity, or a very small one, perhaps even to the point of being an insignificant advantage. Perhaps it would be like driving a nail with a sledgehammer; impressive, but somewhat pointless. But to disavow any advantage seems like a tough wager. Your bet seems to be that such was the quality of a “master” sword that for someone who used them exclusively, the quality of the blade was never an issue. Perhaps so, but that seems a bit much to swallow. Surely there must have been failures at some point. And that’s not to mention the many people who wouldn’t have been able to get their hands on a state-of-the-art damascus steel sword, and would have to suffice on lesser swords made by average artisans using average techniques and materials.

All of which points to a drastically overlooked point in this thread - quality control. Everybody screws up, including the great masters. That hasn’t changed, but our ability to detect our failures has. I’m sure the masters were very skilled in what they did, and developed a good intuition for when a blade wasn’t of the best quality. But even so, the scientist in me says that in spite of his many years of direct experience with the blade, the master smith’s intuition can’t outperform the barrage of testing and imaging we can do today. In short, we are simply better able to quantify things, whether it’s the strength of the blade, it’s flexibility, or the number and degree of microscopic faults in the blade. In other words, we find that we are better able to get what we want and eliminate what we don’t! We don’t have to rely on faith in our ability to make a truly great sword, we can actually look at an individual specimen and see that it truly is what we expected it to be, with a degree of accuracy and precision that simply weren’t possible for the old masters. In short, even if we can only create a sword that is equal, but not superior, to master crafted ancient swords, we can do so more consistantly than the masters did.

Perhaps the question shouldn’t be “Can we make a better sword?”, but “Can we better make swords?”

142

The actual text of Go Ri No Sho is pretty much available as it was written by Musashi. The anecdotes about his life, and his battles vary a great deal with the annotation, and there are hundreds of translations and annotations available.

He himself says that he eschewed the use of steel swords in favor of wooden ones because he did not believe it was possible for him to improve his skill unless he accepted that disadvantage. However he did consider it a disadvantage. On one historically reported occasion he used an oar to kill a man, and on another he hit a guy with a bow. (not an arrow, by the way, but with the bow itself.)

The many different stories of the two masters dueling without a single blow are mostly apocryphal. One has the masters deciding that the lesser swordsman would surely give precedence to the greater, if they both happened to wish to cross the same footbridge at the same time. After a brief pause, they agreed that that would certainly be the case, if ever they happened to be crossing the same bridge on some future day. Both then moved on, leaving this bridge to be crossed another day.

Musashi says that at the moment of confrontation, one combatant becomes the victor, and the other the vanquished. The fight itself follows the will of that moment. He doesn’t seem to think that the type of sword, or quality of it is the deciding factor.

It’s a good book, but it is a very deep read if you are trying to learn how to use weapons, be they swords, armies, or words.

“You must practice this.” It means that you must do it all the time, in all aspects of your life. Not a casual school of fighting.

Tris

143

CADOp, I think I brought up the subject of QC and consistency a few times in the thread, at least as an aside or implied value. I otherwise have no disagreement with what you wrote.

I agree with the quote from Kinthalis - titanium is really cool, but I don’t think it would be a superior metal for a sword for many reasons. I don’t even think alpha titanium has an infinite fatigue life like I was taught steel and aluminium have, but I could be mistaken.

I won’t mention in detail the copper/beryllium knife I used to have - anyone want to guess what it was used for, BTW? :wink:

Cutting into explosives.

144

I think ** Cadop ** has a point. I think with today’s technology we could come up more consistently with finely forged swords. I don’t know that current swordsmiths do this however, it may be that they do, it might not.

Would these process be costly? If not they may even be in use today.

145

Perhaps. Donn Draeger (in his book Bujutsu) disagrees, as he does with this statement:

Draeger says that Musashi actually preferred a wooden bokken to a steel one because it was more durable. Even the super-special-steel katana of Musashi’s day could break or bend if hit wrong. Wood would not.

So even in the hands of Japan’s most famous swordsman, a steel sword could break. Much jojutsu (the stick art developed by the only man to defeat Musashi) aims to do exactly that.

I have also heard speculation that Musashi preferred the wooden weapon because a sword struck against it would tend to penetrate partially, and stick and bind up the weapon and slow down his opponent’s response to a counterstroke.

Regards,
Shodan

146

I don’t know much about Musashi, when was he alive? I do know that european weapons surpassed Japanese techniques until Japan began a similar process of forging blades, though I don’t know exactly when this was, perhaps someone can clarify.

Anyway, this is just rediculous. Common sense will tell you that a wooden sword cannot possibly be more durable than a steel weapon.

Centuries of warriors agree with this, I do too having handled practice wooden swords, as well as live steel ones.

147

1584-1645. An online biography of Japan’s most famous swordsman.

Which process did you mean? Japan has been forging metal swords since the 6th century AD.

Durable in the sense of less likely to shatter. Musashi won his most famous duel using a wooden sword fashioned from a cast-off oar.

Certainly a wooden weapon will not survive multiple combats as well as a steel one will, but since wood (bokken were usually made from Japanese white oak) is so much cheaper than steel, especially in a pre-industrial society, you can throw away a wooden sword and carve yourself another in an hour or two, as opposed to weeks or months to get a new steel one.

If you are thinking of striking against European-style plate armor, the Japanese never developed this kind of armor. Theirs was made mostly of wood, bamboo, leather, and cheaper materials, with (if you were very lucky) a metal helmet.

Regards,
Shodan

148

This is well within the time Japan was creating good blades. And thanx for the link :wink:

I don’t know, I just don’t agree here. I do admit that the thought of using a wooden practice sword against a steel one has never occurred to me however, so I haven’t tested this myself, but I would wager the wooden sword would simply NOT perform very well as compared to a steel weapon. I certainly would not choose a wooden blade when I can use a steel one.

And I think that’s the crux of Musashi. Unless he used wooden swords all the time, he might have used that oar in a psychological game of sorts. Imagine, you’re an accomplished swordsman looking to duel this guy, and he shows up, not with a sword, but with an oar! I’d go bonkers! Maybe that was his plan?

I don’t think it would survive a single contest. and unless it was massive (like a bat), it wouldn’t do much against an opponent even lightly armored.

I agree with you here. The European swordsman had to contend with increasingly improving armor designs. And again, I don’t knwo much about japanese sword techniques. I’m still hoping for someone who does know to give us a little insight.

149

This is well within the time Japan was creating good blades. And thanx for the link :wink:

I don’t know, I just don’t agree here. I do admit that the thought of using a wooden practice sword against a steel one has never occurred to me however, so I haven’t tested this myself, but I would wager the wooden sword would simply NOT perform very well as compared to a steel weapon. I certainly would not choose a wooden blade when I can use a steel one.

And I think that’s the crux of Musashi. Unless he used wooden swords all the time, he might have used that oar in a psychological game of sorts. Imagine, you’re an accomplished swordsman looking to duel this guy, and he shows up, not with a sword, but with an oar! I’d go bonkers! Maybe that was his plan?

I don’t think it would survive a single contest. and unless it was massive (like a bat), it wouldn’t do much against an opponent even lightly armored.

I agree with you here. The European swordsman had to contend with increasingly improving armor designs. And again, I don’t knwo much about japanese sword techniques. I’m still hoping for someone who does know to give us a little insight.

150

If you mean that the steel swordsman could cut thru the wooden sword, no, that isn’t realistically possible.

Kenjutsuka practiced as powerful a stroke as possible, in order to cut thru armor. One fundamental stressed by all kenjutsu teachers is to keep the elbows bent at impact, so that they aren’t injured.

Not all the duels that Musashi fought were against armored opponents. I believe the famous one with the oar was against an unarmored opponent.

Yes, Musashi was a master of psychological combat. The story is told that he unnerved one opponent by fashioning an armband from a scrap of paper as he was being rowed to the island where the duel was to take place (after keeping his opponent waiting for hours). His display of calm in the face of impending death caused near-panic in his opponent, leading to an easy victory.

Regards,
Shodan

151

How could a wooden blade be more durable than a metal one, in any sense? Wood most certainly can shatter on impact; just ask any baseball fan. But I’ve never heard of a metal bat shattering on hitting the ball. Why would the situation with swords not be analogous?

And furthermore, if wooden swords of the time were superior to metal swords, why were the metal swords made at all?

152

Back to a titanium sword for just a moment, I’d think that getting the balance of the weapon right would be tricky. Plus if you ended up with a weapon that only weighed a few ounces as easy as it would be to carry into battle, I’d think that once the battle began you’d wish for a sword with a little more mass to it.

153

Well, I guess it depends on just how sharp and strong the blade was. Can you imagine a sword as light as an epee with an edge fine enough to slice through steel like a hot knife through butter? We’re talking light sabre here! You only need a lot of weight because the blade isn’t sharp enough or strong enough to cut through steel without a lot of mass to provide inertia.

A blade that weighed mere ounces but was as sharp and as strong as the finest broadsword would, in my opinion, be a definite advantage since it could be wielded for long periods without the swordsman getting tired.

Just a thought…

Barry

154

Perhaps, but I’ve noticed that there’s a “sweet” spot, as it were, for slinging around objects, anything above a certain weight was a chore and anything below a certain weight was also a chore because it’s lightness made it difficult to control. Swords might be different in their handling characteristics because of their length, and it might be that with enough training one could grow used to it enough to adapt, but I can’t say for sure.

155

Well, I’ve never swung a broadsword, but I have done my share of fencing. A light foil or epee is a joy to swing, but simply not strong or sharp enough to do any damage as a slicing tool. If somebody could make an epee with a razor sharp edge that didn’t dull and couldn’t break, I think it would be a magnificent weapon.

In reality, though, I suppose you are correct and that it would be impossible to ever make a blade that was that sharp or strong. You would still need the weight of the blade to help provide enough force to do significant damage while slicing.

156

Well the ‘sweetspot’ for most swords tend to be from 1 1/2 to ~ 3 lbs. in weight.

That’s enough to provide the necessary force to do damage in a cut, and achieves a balance so that it is not too taxing on the swordsman.

157

Note that a titanium sword would still have a significant amount of weight. Titanium is just over half the weight of steel after all, and a bit heavier than aluminium alloys.

158

At a flea market in Baltimore, I once bought two four-chambered blown-glass flasks, intended as liqueur decanters. The fellow who sold them to me said each one was not fused from four blown pieces, but blown as a single piece. He said flasks like this were made in France before WWII, but the factory that made them was destroyed, the secret was lost, and no one can make them today.

159

-The quality is known as toughness.

Glass is very hard, but brittle. It shatters easily, and without flexing.

Soft iron is very resistant to shattering, but flexes easily, and past a very low value, stays flexed.

A truck leaf spring is very tough- it’s designed to flex and return to it’s original shape, and to do so repeatedly. However, a truck spring also tends to be too soft to hold an edge well.

So there’s the balance point: It must be tough enough to bend without taking a permanent deformation, yet hard enough to take and hold an edge, but not so hard it becomes brittle.

This is the key, the trick, the lost art. The ancient Japanese swordmsiths made their best blades with a mix of metals: the spine is relatively soft, the edge is relatively hard, and the side somewhat halfway in between. The soft back gave it the resiliency, the hard edge kept it’s hone, and the semi-hard sides gave it rigidity.

Musashi used Bokken, wooden training swords. As I mentioned earlier, steel was fabulously expensive in the day, and a finished sword even more so. A finished sword by a master smith, well, only rich emperors and powerful Diamyo could afford them.

At times in his life, Musashi could have afforded them, or had them given by his lords- and probably did- but as noted, he often used the bokken to deliberately handicap himself, like a runner strapping on wrist and ankle weights.

Would they have held up? Certainly. Keep in mind bokken are considerably thicker than a sword blade- the one I had was nearly as thick as a shovel handle. In trained hands and in actual combat, it was (obviously) used as an impact weapon, not a hack-and-stab weapon.

The “oar” duel already noted, essentially consisted of Musashi walking up and smacking the opponent on the top of his head with the carved-down oar. (Which, as I recall, he made since he had forgotten his own bokken.)

A good, stout stick, especially something tight-grained like hickory, and swung with great force against the side of a steel sword, stands a very good chance of breaking said sword, and taking little damage in return.

Similarly, sword-on-sword contact can induce the same effect: strike the flat of one with the edge of another, and chances are, the one struck forcefully on the flat, will break.

And the idea that a metallurgically superior blade- stronger, tougher, more flexible, able to hold it’s edge better- would not be a decided advantage, all else being equal, is ludicrous.

160

You’ve got to be kidding me! Even a steel sword would not do this to a good blade, you think a wooden stick will break a steel weapon?

European swords atleast are MEANT to be used that way. You usually deflect or slap off an attack with the flat of the blade.

This is funny coming from you, considering that you trying to imply that a WOODEN sword (neither more flexible, durable, or capable of holding any sort of edge) is just as good a steel blade!