|
There Is No Best Sword: If there were no firearms, they'd still be designing new swords
This new interest in swords is both gratifying and partly frustrating. It gives me a chance to share an interest and hobby I have had for many years, but now I encounter more and more mistakes, misunderstandings, and just plain stupid ideas.
Frequently, I hear this stuff from people who should know better. I know a collector of custom knives who is a fanatic in the care of his blades. He will buy a very find and well-made knife and take superb care of it. The edge will never be abused. He was stunned recently to find out that swords will nick when struck edge to edge. He frankly didn't think I knew what I was talking about, I guess because they do it in the movies all the time. When I suggested he try it with a couple of his knives, he got the idea.
I once had a guy pick up one of my swords, a schiavona. I warned him that it was quite sharp, but he assured me that he was quite familiar with swords and actually was quite expert in their use. He then proceeded to go into some katas designed for the katana. Before I could say anything he had drawn the back edge of the sword along his shoulder, cutting a 6-inch gash in his deltoid and arm.
On another occasion I watched a young guy pick up a large two-hand claymore. He immediately assumed some of the stances made popular by Arnold Schwarzenegger as Conan -- stances also based on katas for the katana. After manfully trying to whirl the heavy sword one-handed, he handed it back to the owner, said "Nice balance" and strutted off, obviously convinced the people watching were impressed. Alas, most of them were giggling. It was obvious he couldn't handle the sword; it was simply too big for the way he was trying to use it.
Because of the popularity of Oriental martial arts and the Japanese sword, what I see the most are people trying to handle one-handed broadswords like katanas. But I have also had fencers pick up the same sword and tell me it is impossible to fight with, as you can't even hold it in a proper guard position.
There is not just one type of sword, nor is there just one way to use a sword. A specific technique requires a specific sword, and a specific type of sword requires a specific technique. Rapiers do not cut near as well as katanas. Katanas do not penetrate near as well as rapiers. Neither is very good against plate armor.
At the risk of repeating myself I want to point out that swords are designed with specific uses in mind. They should be judged this way.
I have heard people argue over which is the better sword, the rapier or a Viking type, for instance. This is foolish. What they are actually talking about are fighting styles, not swords. Any sword should be discussed only in the context of what it was designed to do.
This is not a chicken or egg question. Sword designs came first, and practical styles evolved around them. The first sword design was dependent on the skill of the maker, and the material from which it was made -- copper, then bronze. Then sword and technique in Europe entered into a constantly whirling and evolving dance that didn't end until the development of the repeating firearm. Swords and technique in many parts of the world evolved very slowly; in some places they never arrived; and in some places they took directions that were strange to say the least.
Wooden swords edged with shark's teeth, draw cuts, pulling cuts, slashes - all of these are understandable, but there has always been one type of sword and fighting technique that fills me with... well, I'm not sure what. You decide: The Abyssinian shotel is a long curved double-edged sword. At first glance, it looks like a Near Eastern scimitar, but on closer inspection you realize that the curve is a full half circle. And it is, I repeat, double-edged. The blade, generally, is a flattened, diamond cross section and quite stiff.
The natives fight with these swords from behind large, circular leather shields. Rather than try to cut through the shield, or feint it out of the way, they reach around it to hook their opponent with the point of the sword. I think you can image what a strange type of combat it must be. Many years ago, when the movie theaters had shorts subjects, I saw a travelogue that briefly showed two Abyssinians "fencing" with sword and shield. They hoped and ducked and bounced all around, with the long curved swords moving in very awkward ways. Really strange.
When you handle a shotel you realize that it isn't very effective for slicing, nor slashing, and certainly not built for thrusting, but it is pretty good for hooking, and that is how it should be judged.
To get a better idea of function and design, usage and effectiveness, let's take brief looks at how changes have taken place with some specific types.
The term "rapier" doesn't show up until the late 15th century and was used to denote a slender sword worn as part of civilian dress. But its origins go further back, and it can be argued that it had its beginnings in the estoc of the 14th century.
The estoc was a long sword, with a stiff blade of square or triangular section and no functioning edges. It was designed to punch through armor, either plate or mail. Against plate, there was the possibility it could pierce the plate if it struck squarely, and if not, it could slide and wedge in one of the joints of the armor. It was at about this time that they were learning to put little bars and circles on crossguards to help protect the hand. The counter argument regarding the ancestry of the rapier points out that earliest rapiers were double-edged -- in essence, merely lighter swords worn with civilian dress. Such swords were not used in battle and were primarily for self-defense and
dueling.
At this time, the blades were generally double-edged, but somewhat slim, and used for both the cut and thrust. The Art of Fence was quite rudimentary. The sword had always been considered an offensive weapon; one blocked or parried only in dire emergencies. Soon, however, the sword was used as a defensive weapon as well. Of course, this tore the edges up pretty badly, but they also quickly learned to parry with the flat, and anyway, the point was more deadly.
As this style of combat took over, the sword began to change again. The hilt began to acquire more elaborate rings in order to protect the hand, and the blade began to lengthen and narrow. By the middle of the 16th century, the sword had become the swept-hilt rapier. The blade had gotten quite long, and the edge was no longer important. Indeed, there was one blade that was square in section and flattened for the last inches, so that it was sharp there. This point was used for slashing cuts, usually at the face and eyes. The blade was excessively long, up to 60 inches in some cases. It was felt, incorrectly, that the longer blade gave advantage.
It must have been awkward walking around with a 60-inch sword blade banging into things and tripping people. It got to be such a nuisance in England Queen Elizabeth issued an edict, and every sword over a yard long was broken.
The Art of Fence was getting better and better, and by the turn of the century, the lunge was developed. This really put an end to excessively long blades, and they rapidly shrank to about 36-39 inches. In the meantime, the hilt had been acquiring a few shells and plates and finally, in the early 17th century, acquired the form known as a cavalier hilt. It is very similar to the slightly earlier dish hilt, and both are frequently confused with the cup hilt. It has a tendency to bounce about and proved annoying. Besides, they didn't think it looked very dressy. I do, but I also realize that to me it looks romantic as hell.
And so the sword continued to change. The guard became smaller; the crossguard, wherein one once looped his fingers for a very secure grip, was now merely decorative. The blade continued to shrink until at last the final form of the smallsword was reached -- triangular blade, very light and fast, from 30 to 33 inches long.
They look like beautiful and deadly little toys, smallswords do. They are light and slim and very attractive. Many consider them the ultimate sword and the most deadly of all the dueling weapons. Personally, I strongly disagree. They are quite deadly when used within the limitations now taken for granted. This is, one is not supposed to grab the blade. However, grabbing the blade was an honorable and valued tactic, even if it is now illegal in sport fencing. I can assure you it is not difficult to slap a blade aside with your off hand or even seize it if the missed thrust is even the tiniest bit slow. This is not a feasible tactic if the blade is well edged, but with a triangular blade it is quite possible.
We have not really studied the development of the rapier here, but it is hoped we have shown something of the dynamics of the design progression from the beginnings to the peak in the 1670s and then to its final and (my opinion) degenerate form. The purpose of this sort of sword at this time was to provide civilian protection. As more was learned the sword changed to take advantage of this knowledge. Fashion and changing social conditions worked on the rapier, but even in its final form it never strayed from its intended purpose as a thrusting weapon, designed to be used with one hand, and to provide protection from a similar weapon. In none of these forms was it intended to be used against armor or in the heavy heat of battle.
Another sword that needs to be looked at is the medieval or knightly cruciform sword that is always incorrectly referred to as a broadsword. This sword can easily be traced back to the beginning of the Iron Age. For our purposes, we can start with the Vikings.
The early Viking sword in general use was long -- about 33-34 inches -- broad -- 2-2.5 inches -- with a single fuller. The blade had parallel sides, with little or no taper. Steel was quite valuable, and at this time making large quantities was quite difficult. As a result, the swords were made by a process called pattern welding.
In this process, steel bars containing a good deal of carbon were welded to iron bars, then all were twisted and rewelded to produce the patterns we refer to as Damascus. A high-carbon edge was then welded on, the sword was filed, ground, tempered and polished. The end result was a light and fast blade, capable of delivering a terrible shearing cut. A good Viking sword was flexible, yet had a very hard edge.
This sword was designed to be used in conjunction with a wooden shield. It would be facing, more than likely, another wooden shield, and a foe wearing an iron helmet and armored with leather. If that opponent were very rich he would be wearing a mail shirt.
The sword, therefore, had to be flexible. It needed to take a lot of shock when hitting a shield, and cutting into a torso or even a leg -- the most likely target -- put a lot of strain on the sword. If it wasn't flexible, then it would bend easily. Of course, the sword could have been made thicker, but then the weight would be too great for combat. Swords at this time weighed between 2 and 3 pounds, tops. One wins an encounter with swords by cutting the other fellow first. In the 14th century, given the state of defensive armor, that meant leg cuts. Of the hundreds of corpses piled at Visby in 1361, 70% had leg wounds, most of them deep enough to be seen in the bones 500 years later.
The edge, we see, had to be hard. Bone is tough, so is a steel rimmed shield. And there was always the likelihood of hitting mail. One tried to avoid this by cutting at the neck, the hands and arms and, particularly, the legs.
Sometimes you got an opening and just had to take a cut. Mail is tough, composed of iron wire. It was not tempered and is somewhat soft. Tempered mail is not a good idea -- under a blow, such mail will break, giving free rein to the edge. Soft mail will bend and deform, resisting the cut a long way. Any mail will nick the edge, but if the blow is delivered accurately, at the proper angle and with a great deal of force, this sword can and will cut mail.
That is the sword in general use in Europe at the beginning of the Viking Age.Around 900 AD, a new sword appeared. The blade was slightly shorter -- 32 inches average -- but with the same width. It tapered much more acutely, and ended in a good serviceable point. The change in blade shape makes this a much faster sword in both the cut and the recovery. By throwing the weight closer to the hand, the sword becomes easier to maneuver.
Those features weren't the big difference. The real biggie was that the whole sword was made of steel. No matter how good the smith, a pattern-welded sword was an expensive and slow production. With large pieces of steel, the whole process is speeded up, the sword is cheaper, and just as good. But the new sword had to be better because the armor had also started to improve. Actually, the armor was pretty much the same, except there was now more of it, and mail was more likely to be encountered because it was accumulating, generation by generation.
The next 200 years saw more changes. Mail now covered the whole body. Fighting on foot was left to the peasant. The knight, fully armored, held a good solid wooden shield and the lance was the main weapon. The sword became secondary, a back-up, and was used against lightly armored foot soldiers.
The sword had changed again. Its shape reverted and the two edges were more nearly parallel. Speed was not quite as important now as the weight of the blow. The blade had become slightly longer to give greater impetus to the blow, and to give the horseman greater reach.
The next 200-year jump brings us to 1300 AD, and even more changes.
At this time, armor was beginning to win the eternal fight with arms. Mail was slightly thicker and stronger, and strengthened with plates and splints of steel. These changes brought about changes in sword design and new types of swords appeared.
The most prominent of these swords was the Great Sword or War Sword. This is a long-bladed sword, and blades average about 40 inches in length. The sword is not particularly heavy, weighing 4 to 5 pounds. It is light enough to be swung one-handed in conjunction with a shield, but the grip is long enough to accommodate another hand, so that the sword can be used two-handed. The great length increases velocity and cutting power. Along with the long-bladed Great Sword, a shorter weapon appears, with a blade shape similar to the later Viking swords, but more exaggerated. These are big swords, with very wide blades tapering sharply. The wide blade increases the cutting power of the sword, while the strong taper makes the point a most important part of the sword. Flexibility is now sacrificed for rigidity to strengthen the thrust.
Even a third sword achieved new use. The falchion had always been around, but with the increase in protective capability of armor the falchion became a most useful weapon. With a short very wide blade, single-edged, it is capable of delivering a terrible blow. Shaped like a modern Shriner's scimitar, it became popular not only with knights, but with archers and men-at-arms.
From here until the 1650s the changes in arms and armor became more rapid.
Mail, that most ancient and honored form of defense, was discarded in favor of plate. The skill of the armorer reached heights that have never been, and never will, be equaled. Plate armor is a light, rigid defense that allows a man to move quite freely, and yet gives great protection. The only real drawback is that it is extremely hot. Ventilation is almost nil, and this can cause exhaustion. Fighting on horseback, when the main body parts used are the arms, is OK. One can do this for a rather long while. However, on foot, when the legs are used, much more heat is generated and more oxygen required and plate is less useful
Swordmakers made one last attempt to overcome the new armor. Light and flat cutting blades were abandoned. The sword profile with a blade wide at the top and tapering very sharply, stayed pretty much the same. However, the cross-section became a thick, flattened diamond, and the sword became quite rigid. Weight varied a great deal. Some blades stayed light, weighing 2 to 3 pounds, while others went upwards of 5 pounds. These heavy swords became nothing but sharpened bars of steel. Both the heavy and the light versions were attempts to punch through the armor, and it could be done if the blow was heavy and square. In a slightly off-center blow, there was a chance the sword would slide into a crevice or chink and wound the man. And the heavy swords also tried to "break" the armor by sheer weight and force.
This was the last attempt of the sword to overcome armor and that fight was abandoned. There was simply no way that a sword was going to cut through steel plate. Axes, maces and war hammers became the weapons of armored combat.
The sword was by no means abandoned. It simply was not used when fighting armored knights. The sword was too important socially and traditionally to be cast aside. Civilian swords became important items of dress. In combat, the flat, light cutting sword came back and was carried to fight men at arms and other lightly armed troops.
This is, of course, a quick and simplified view of the whole thing. Obviously, the bow and the pike were to render armor almost obsolete, and gunpowder administered the coup de grace. However, we can see here that swords are all shaped to achieve specific goals while overcoming specific obstacles. Each new type of sword was a response to a new development in armor or fighting style.
Let's look at a modern example where sword and style conflict mightily.
Japanese arms and armor were fully developed by the 1200s, and stayed pretty much the same for several hundred years. The katana is an excellent sword, and quite well designed for the type of fighting for which it is intended. The fencing techniques are excellent. Regardless of other styles you may consider superior -- sword and shield, rapier fencing, Turkish and Iranian swordplay -- Japanese fencing and the katana are perfectly matched.
In fighting with a katana, many of the moves are drawcuts, and many of the attacks are designed to be struck with the front 6 inches of the blade. The katana is well suited for this, as the blade is strong, thick, and well curved.
In a recent movie, the hero uses a wide, straight and heavy sword. All his moves and posturing, however, are for the katana in attacks that simply would not work with such a sword. A blow with the front 6 inches would set up vibrations that could jar your teeth. And it wouldn't cut very deep. Now you could stop the vibrations by making the blade extremely thick, but then you also increase the weight and lessen the cutting power even more. In short, the movie sword was simply wrong for the type of fighting shown. About the only thing more ludicrous would have been using it like a rapier. Of course, the movie's hero was the sort of superhero who could handle a heavy sword. The actor, however, was swinging an aluminum blade. Don't ever try those moves with a sharp 6-pound steel sword, let alone one of those 9-pounders some guys make.
On the subject of modern swords, I am told some of them are hung on the wall in anticipation of defense against intruders. The merits of this as an idea should be debated in some other forum; we can discuss the new swords, however.
Most of them are well-made of good materials. I believe some of them are a little too hard for the shocks a sword blade must take. Almost all are far too heavy. A 6-pound sword is laughable, and a 4-pounder is only worth a chuckle. A sword is not a long knife; it mush be, for its size, more lightly constructed.
Only a 2 to 3 pound sword should be considered for modern use; nothing heavier will achieve the velocity needed, nor will a heavier sword maneuver, parry or recover fast enough. It should be relatively short and quite sharp and straight enough for a serious thrust. The straight wakizashi sold as a "ninja" sword, the hanger or European hunting sword, and shorter 19th century foot officers swords are all useful models, but 12-pound knightly swords? Never.
One sword that provides quite interesting material for such speculation is the saber. It can also show the relationships between fighting styles, perceived fighting styles and design.
Most people will tell you that the curved cavalry saber was tired for a number of years, was found wanting, and the final, most efficient cavalry sword was the straight one. They will point to both the British and U.S. cavalry swords of this century. Both were straight-bladed thrusting weapons. They were, however, the last designs only because the machine gun had rendered cavalry obsolete. The question as to which was the best was never fully answered.
The fight was bitter for a century or more, and the thrusting sword won only by very narrow margins. Here is some of the argument employed over the efficiency of the two styles:
The curved sword has been the sword of the mounted warrior in many places and for many years. A curved slashing blow is very damaging, and even if it does not kill, it can render the victim unable to continue the fight. Against infantry, the curve allows the cavalryman to strike a strong and effective blow that does not imprison the blade and cause it to be wrenched from the hand. Against other mounted troops it provides effective offense and defense. Sitting astride a horse, the sword is easier to handle in cutting motions than the unnatural thrusts that a straight blade requires.
Opponents pointed out the many times that soldiers had been struck repeatedly on the head with curved sabers and continued to fight. They also cited times when swords have been driven deep into the body, and wrenched from the grasp as the horse swept past. After pointing out the horrors and inadequacies of the curved saber, they launch into the merits of the straight blade.
It can reach an infantry soldier lying flat on the ground. The horse won't willingly step on a man, and you need to lean too far out of the saddle to cut someone lying flat. However, with a straight blade you can reach the ground with the point, which means you can thrust through. A most valid point is that when someone is stabbed, he isn't likely to continue to fight. As for fighting other mounted troops, with proper training you can learn to stab. As for holding on to the weapon, with the proper wrist motion the sword can be pulled from the body of the enemy, either by the cavalryman himself, or he can let the motion of the horse do it. And it was claimed the thrust was hard to dodge or parry.
One can see that both swords have their merits, and both have their flaws. One of the most serious flaws of the curved saber was one that could have most easily been corrected. You see, most military sabers were never sharpened. They just had flats and no real edge. They made nasty surface wounds by splitting the flesh, but did not cut deeply. Had they been sharpened -- ah, then things would have been quite different. On the other hand, the thrust of a 40-inch blade at the end of an outstretched arm, urged along by 800 pounds of moving horse, provides a serious problem and certainly no easy answers.
That, in a nutshell and with different problems and different swords, is the story of sword design. Most well-made swords did their jobs well, but there never was an all-around sword. Judge them that way, each in its own context -- there is no best.
Hype . . .
As Ancient An Art As Sword Making
Hype is part of the American scene, maybe even the culture, and most of us have learned this and are ready to discount a lot of hype we hear. In some areas, however, it appears that hype is becoming true, and many people take as facts stories that are, at beast, outrageous. This seems to be particularly true with the Japanese sword. In the early 1950s, with the release of the movie Bad Day at Black Rock, in which one-armed Spencer Tracy uses karate/judo to tear up villain Ernest Borgnine, the U.S. went on a kick glorifying the Oriental martial arts. Since that time we have been treated to increasingly impossible feats of derring-do -- heroes who leap straight up over 10 feet, who unarmed and single-handedly take 15-20 villains and destroy them without working up a sweat or getting a bloody nose, who can hurl a knife 50 feet into the trigger guard of a pistol. Ridiculous.
If the unarmed impossibilities are not bad enough, we are also treated to the armed impossibilities: Mac 10 submachine guns that fire 300 rounds from one magazine, swords that shear plate and concrete columns and then are struck edge to edge and never take a nick, and knives that cut barbwire with a mysterious twist of the blade. Most of this people see as hype, but for some reason, when the Japanese sword is hyped, everyone believes it.
As a student of arms and armor for many years, I find this both distressing and amusing. When I mention that a Viking sword, "Quernbiter" by name, was called this because it was supposed to have cut a millstone in half, everyone laughs and considers it a tall tale, which it undoubtedly was. Then the same audience will gravely assure me that the Japanese Katana has been known to cut a machine gun barrel in half.
This stunt must have happened several times, because when I tried to track the source, it seems to have occurred on Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, and several other islands. I have to believe Japanese soldiers have some sort of pathological hatred for machine gun barrels. I have also wondered why they never tried to cut down the gunner.
Not only are Japanese blades exalted by such folks to the point of sheer absurdity, but European blades are downgraded until they become mere bars of iron, incapable of cutting hot butter. This just isn't true.
Students of arms and armor have always regarded the Japanese sword as a very fine weapon. It has good balance, may be well constructed, and it does what it was designed to do pretty well. But it is made out of steel, and has all the limitations of other steel swords. It isn't magic.
The earliest Japanese swords were direct descendents of the Chinese swords of the same period-straight, single-edged blades. These swords were poorly made, and may not have been tempered. Around 300 to 400 AD the Japanese learned how to temper the swords to produce a steely iron. Even after this, the sword was not highly regarded, and the bow was considered much superior. Soon, straight double-edged swords began to appear, but did not remain on the scene very long, possibly because tempering a double-edged sword offers problems. Legend has it that a single smith, Amakuni, designed the first single-edged and curved sword. The exact shape of this blade is not known, but it was not until roughly 1100 AD that the sword reached the final shape. By 1300, it was a truly good sword and very well made. These early blades all seemed to be slightly larger and longer than blades made after the end of the 16th century. There have been volumes written on the methods of constructing a Japanese sword, and it is not my purpose here to elaborate on them. The method was complex and involved layering the steel to produce a blade very nearly homogenous in its various elements. On top of this, a very hard steel was used for the edge, and a softer, more shock resistant type was used for the rest of the blade. Sometimes the edge was covered by the softer metal, sometimes the hard steel covered a softer body.
The end result was a blade that had a very hard edge, and a resilient body. However, even with the resiliency, the Japanese sword was not very flexible. One school of swordsmiths, the Soshu, was noted for producing blades that were very tough because they possessed a slight degree of flexibility. A look at European theories in the same time frames shows different approaches.
As early as 700 BC, the Celts were forging weapons, both spears and swords, by piling on layers of iron and forging the whole mess. This process continually improved until by 500 AD excellent pattern-welded swords were being made. In this process, bundles of carburized iron bars were welded together, and then a hard steel edge was welded on. This produced a sword, usually double-edged, with a soft, resilient body and a hard edge. The sword was flat, rather thin, quite light and flexible. Weight was in the area of 28 to 40 ounces.
These swords remained quite popular until about 900 AD when a new sword appeared. This sword was somewhat slimmer in the area of the point, tapering more sharply from the hilt, and was composed of steel-not iron that had been carburized, but steel all the way through. They were easier to make and, for all intents and purposes, just as strong as the earlier blades.
Two very important factors should be noted here. The European smiths were constantly trying out slight variations and whole new shapes. There were single-edged swords, slightly curved blades, and short swords like the Roman gladius as well as wide-bladed chopping weapons.
The Japanese, once they had decided on a basic shape, never made any attempts to improve on it. Many would like to say that having found the perfect shape, there was no reason to improve on it. I don't think that's true at all.
The Japanese culture has always been quite rigid, heavily bound by tradition. This highly controlled society did not encourage experimentation. The plus side is that it did leave us with a large number of very fine swords that are quite old and in excellent shape.
Let's take a look at cutting powers. The European blade was light, fast, with a hard edge (carbon content ranges from .75% to 1.2%) and capable of delivering a terrible, shearing blow. It was also a one-handed weapon, usually used in conjunction with a wooden shield. Flexibility was a definite necessity. When cutting into a shield or the body of a foeman, the blade had to be able to twist and bend and not break or distort. A man with a sword cutting him does not stand still. Opposed by the armor in use at the time -- mail, leather or heavy padding -- a sword can cut much deeper if it is thin and wide at the striking point because a thin blade does not have to push a great deal of material aside. These swords will cut mail when a hard blow is struck and the mail hit squarely. I've spent a lot of time and money testing the cut on hams covered with mail. If the blow is not hit squarely, the edge will skate and not bite. When the mail is fairly hit, even with force, there is very little, if any, damage to the edge of a good sword.
The Japanese sword is a superb draw-cutting weapon. This is the method that has been taught for the past several hundred years, and the evidence seems to indicate that it was always used in a similar fashion. In a draw cut, the blade is pulled as it cuts, and therefore not only shears, but slices as well. In soft tissue such as flesh or bone, it delivers a truly fearsome cut, being easily capable of cutting a torso in half. The draw back is that it doesn't cut armor, even mail, very well. A draw cut is very ineffective against hard armor. Changing the cut, and delivering a shearing blow does not work either. The blade of the katana is thick, with a sharp cutting bevel. The edge is strong, but the wedge it presents has to move aside more material. When cutting into metal, this is very difficult to do.
There are two additional points that should be considered. The Japanese sword was a two-handed weapon. Using both hands, a much harder blow can be delivered. Earlier swords, which were slightly heavier and longer, would add even additional force to the blow. But even with these advantages, the sword was not very good at penetrating armor.
The Japanese made good swords, but they also made very good armor. Many of the suits have plates of the same steel as the sword blades. The front of the plates was just as hard as the sword edge, while the back was soft and springy.
In order to have a good chance against the armor there are three weapons that are much better than the sword. They are the bow, the yari (spear) and the naginata. That explains why in battle, the three principal weapons used were the bow, theyari and the naginata.
In Europe, when practical firearms made armor obsolete, it was quickly abandoned. The same thing is true of Japan. One thing the Japanese are not is stupid.
That is true with all warrior societies. The sword was never the principal battle weapon. It has always been the weapon of last resort. The Roman relied on his pilum, the Greek his spear, the knight his lance, the Mongol his bow, and the Landsnecht his pike or halberd. In Japan it was just more so. The sword was used on the battlefield for the last bit of hand-to-hand combat, to finish off the wounded, and for the last forlorn stand, when the warrior chooses to kill and die.
All of the above refers to fully armored warriors. Never forget that in both Europe and Japan there were many warriors on the field who were not fully armored.
Another "fact" about Japanese swords is that the point, which is distinct and unique, is an armor-piercing point. It isn't. Shoving a knife or sword through a car door isn't that hard and many blades can do it. The Japanese point is harder to pierce with than many other designs. However that point is one of the best cutting points ever designed. Generally a sword point involved in a cut produces a lot of drag and reduces the efficiency of the cut. However, the Japanese point with its sharply angled "edge" portion, actually aids the cut. This would be quite important, as many standard cuts with Japanese swords are made with the first 6 inches of the blade. Europeans simply ignored the problem, which for them was very minor. Most of their cuts were made well back of the point. Due to the shape of the sword, the optimal striking point on most European blades was very well down the blade. Much later, many European cavalry sabers had points similar to the Japanese.
I have been assured, frequently in fact, that Japanese blades are so strong and tough that they never break, nick or bend. Well, they break, they nick, and they bend. They frequently nick quite badly. Damascus steel is a superior steel, or it can be when done by a superb smith. But even a superior steel is still steel and will respond like steel. One sad fact is that the harder the steel, the more likely it is to chip and nick. A softer metal will bend, flatten or otherwise distort. When this happens, it is relatively easy to pound or file a new cutting edge. When a chip leaves a gap, not much can be done. A piece can be reforged into the blade, but this also requires that the blade be retempered.
THE NIGHT BEFORE HANKMAS
by Hank reinhardt
‘Twas the Night before Hankmas, and all through the castle
Not a warrior was stirring, not even to wrestle,
The swords were hung in their scabbards with care,
For fear that old Grendel soon would be there.
The warriors were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of rapine danced in their heads.
With Conan in plate, and me in my mail,
We both settled down to hold wassail.
When out from the court there arose such a clatter,
We sprang from our chairs to see what was the matter.
Away to the windows we flew like flashes, tore open the shutters,
And threw up the sashes.
The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow,
Gave a luster of Faerie to objects below.
When what to our startled eyes should appear,
But a ten-foot troll, in warlike gear!
With a seven-foot mace with a head like a trendle,
We knew in a moment that is MUST be Grendel!
More rapid than eagles, the Wolfbrothers came,
Grendel danced and shouted and called them by name.
“Ho Hewlin, Ho Torgutai, Ho Eric the Black,
I’ll crush you all, and break Irongrim’s back!
Over the shields, under the shields and through the shield wall,
I’ll never stop killing till I’ve killed them all.”
As dry leaves before the wild hurricane fly,
When they meet with an obstacle and mount to the sky,
So through the castle the Wolfbrothers flew.
Then Conan charged, and he flew too!
And then in a twinkle I leapt to the floor,
And Grendel charged, his club like a door!
“Ulric, you dog!” he grave a great bound
And that giant of a mace came spinning around.
I ducked my head and spun to the side,
Had I not done so, I would have soon died.
The great club shattered, with the force of the blow,
And I leapt and roared and closed with my foe.
He was dirty matted fur from his head to his foot,
His teeth were yellow, with a tongue black as soot.
He seized me quickly around my back;
He squeezed and laughed and thought I would crack.
But I laughed and howled with a warrior’s glee,
Gripped his arms, and soon I was free …
He twisted and turned and howled and fought,
But all his struggles soon came to nought.
I let loose one arm, and grabbed the other.
He yelled and prayed and called for his mother.
I tugged and tugged with might and main.
He gurgled and guggled and moaned with pain.
I heaved, and spun, and he flew like a rocket,
And I tore his arm off, right at the socket!
He screamed and yelled and fell to the floor,
Bounced like a ball, and dashed through the door.
The Hall was now free from its fearsome taint,
But the walls were red with a strange new paint.
I felt no sorrow for the ten-foot troll.
Ulric’s humor is known to be droll.
For the monster realized, as he died in his cave,
That Ulric is a disarming knave.
THE FOOTBALL GAME THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!
by Hank Reinhardt
I am sure that most of you out there realize that both Toni and I are football fans. It is well known that I am a follower of Georgia Tech Football. And I will admit that Tech football has fallen on hard times. Toni is a follower of a more heathen and debased form of the sport as is practiced in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (also now fallen on hard times).
However, jointly we can point with pride that in the bowl match-ups it was the ACC who proved its superiority, while the SEC finished a close second.
It was during our discussion of the games that we realized that there would never be a game between Oregon State and the University of South Carolina. It does not matter how they will finish in the polls, it simply will not happen.
Now I am sure that some of you will wonder why, and in the following vignette, we will attempt to show you why this is impossible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen! We are proud to bring you the final game of the football season. This fabled match-up will determine who is the number one team in the country. Right now the Oregon State Beavers are on top, but the Mighty Gamecocks of South Carolina hope to reverse that position.
Here is the opening kickoff. The Gamecocks have it at their 10 yard line. They see an opening in the center, but the Beavers shut it down quickly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
At halftime:
This is a very hard fought football game. Each team has tried to assert itself and to dominate the other, but neither has been successful. The first half saw the Gamecocks, driving and thrusting straight up the center, using all of their fabled speed and power, but at each thrust they were thwarted by the clever defense of the Beavers.
When the Beavers had the ball, they used their Tight Ends and Wide Receivers to the fullest, luring the Gamecocks to commit themselves, but the defenders were always able to pull back in time to limit the gains of the Beavers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The summary of the second half:
Ladies and Gentlemen, the last half of this fabled game was even more exciting than the first. Unable to complete a meaningful pass, the Gamecocks continued to drive, pound and grind their way forward, while the Beavers yielded ground, always fading back, shifting their defenses, and while giving ground, never allowing the tough, hard Gamecocks to score.
In the final minutes of the game the Gamecocks mounted a really long, hard drive, and just continued to pound right up the middle. Although driven back and down, with the Gamecocks on top, the gallant Beavers continued their defiance. Just when it seemed impossible for the Gamecocks to overcome this yielding defense that never gave up, a hard-charging fullback split the line, thrust deep into the secondary, and suddenly arrive in the promised land---
TOUCHDOWN-TOUCHDOWN—the Gamecocks have scored!!! What an explosion of joy!
After the game, the South Carolina Gamecocks appeared wilted after their monumental efforts, while the Beavers of Oregon State appeared content that they had put up such a fine effort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We rest our case.
TV REVIEWS
Jane Goodall’s Return to Gombe
I rarely think about reviewing television shows, but this Discovery program was really excellent. Jane Goodall returns to Gombe, and is able to find some of the old chimps that she studied for so long.
She finds the alpha male that she watched grow up. Frodo is now somewhat sickly and is facing a challenge from a group of would-be alpha males. He is challenged by the youngest and is driven off.
Jane explains that he was the biggest and most aggressive, and dominated by sheer brute force. It seems that he wasn’t even a nice chimp, but was just a bully. As she put it, “He was just a big thug.”
Ms. Goodall was the first to show and see that chimps are meat eaters, and that they really do organize hunts for monkeys. She comments on one instance where she saw an actually war. One group of chimps invaded another group’s territory, drove them out, then hunted them down and killed them. There is a flashback scene when Frodo was a young alpha male, and he is one big, mean-looking chimp. Frodo and three others of his band invade another group’s territory, and Frodo finds a lone young male, and beats him to death.
Ms. Goodall fears that many people will use this to say that violence is in our genes and that we can’t help it. But as she points out, we have a mind, and can control our actions. In this I am in complete agreement with her.
Since I was quite young I have believed that this aggressive, violent streak, is built into us and, unless we admit it, we will never be able to control and channel the emotions it causes. All too often people wish to blame society, poverty, poor upbringing, etc, for these tendencies. Then they try to correct these false causes, and –surprise--there is no change in actions. It’s like treating a raging infection and fever with cold baths. It might help a little, but it sure as hell isn’t getting where the problem lies.
BOOK REVIEWS - GENERAL NONFICTION
Slander by Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter is the unquestioned bane of the Liberal Democrat. An avowed Conservative, with Republican leanings, she is more than cordially hated by the Left. James Carville, that staunch defender of Clinton Morality, called her a fool on a recent Crossfire episode. The reason that Ms. Coulter is so hated is that she has a very annoying habit of bringing facts, reason, logic and truth to arguments. This is something the Left really hates. Politics should be about feelings, and People, and, of course, The Children. It doesn’t matter that these policies that the Left has endorsed all fail, or that they cause much more grief and harm than even just ignoring the problems. No, what matters is that their “hearts were in the right place.” [Excuse me while I puke.--TKFWR]
Regretfully, most people are politically naïve. They dutifully listen to what is said on TV or in the magazines, and have no thought of actually checking to see if it is right. It can be easily pointed out that all politicians, Democrats and Republicans, put their re-election well before the good of the nation (hell, even before the survival of the nation!).
Ms. Coulter opens her book with an acknowledgement to friends and family, and then to the New York Times, “Without whom this book would have been impossible.”
I thought that was a delightful and pleasant little dig at one of the most biased and politically correct news organizations in the world. She then proceeds to list all of the lies that have been spread about conservatives and Republicans. She also, much to the disgust of the liberal press, starts telling the truth.
The 2000 election is handled beautifully, and the truth is told about the fabulous brain of Al Gore. (My impression of Gore has always been that the man is a dunce and a liar—one borne out by Coulter’s book.) She also gives the truth about Bush. Certainly not a flattering picture gets painted, but just as certainly he’s not the idiot the press has portrayed.
But these are just two of the items she deals with. Generally, she is listing the lies and slander that the Liberals have used to attack Conservatives, and then showing the truth.
Her book will be very difficult for the Liberals to refute (they won’t even try), as she list all of her sources and footnotes aplenty. For those sitting on the fence, or for Conservatives who like to have ammunition in debates, this is a must read.
Catastrophe by David Keys
The jacket blurb, “An investigation into the origins of the modern world,” is a little bit misleading. But, what it is, is a fascinating historical search into the cataclysmic event that took place in about 535 AD. Recorded all over the world, the event produced famine, plague, and helped in the fall of cultures and peoples.
All too often there are books of this nature that promise to offer shocking revelations, and they are mainly junk. However, this one is quite different. I don’t feel that I would be giving anything away to state that he believes that the year of disaster was caused by a volcanic eruption, somewhere around Sumatra. The cloud of ash, spreading around the world, caused crop failures, and sent nomads roaming further afield in search of food.
His search for information and his detailed analysis of ancient records is fascinating.
It’s a worthwhile read for anyone interested in history and society. It also makes you realize just how vulnerable we are to the forces of nature.
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson
I picked this up at the Atlanta airport to have something to read during our trip to England. It looked interesting, and I was willing to take a chance. Boy, was I ever right.
This is a very interesting and delightful book. Mr. Bryson explains that he had no idea as to what a proton even was before he started writing this informal history. And so he spent the next three years learning about science, and better, its history.
His writing is engaging and yet straightforward. He explains what he can, gives comparisons in size, and presents delightful anecdotes about the famous scientists. He admits to being baffled by both cosmology and quantum mechanics. He also gives the source for the quote, “If one isn’t baffled by quantum mechanics, then one doesn’t understand quantum mechanics.”
I admit to being puzzled, and one thing in particular that is puzzling is “entanglement.” I can accept that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Okay. But two particles, separated by several light years, can know instantly the spin of the other?! Hmmm. Why is it that I have the feeling that we have barely scratched the surface of knowledge?
This is a truly fun and interesting book, and I recommend it to everyone.
The Power of Logical Thinking
by Marilyn Vos Savant
&
How To Think Straight
by Robert Thouless
I have recently reread both of these books and thought it would be fun to review them together. I will start with the second, as it was the first I read, oh so many years ago.
I first encountered an excerpt of this book as a supplement in grammar school English, in the 6th grade. My teacher, Mrs. Thompson, made it a point to try to teach her students to think. (As a side note, I used to shudder when I think of the tricks we played on her. As I have obtained a few years, I have realized she was fully aware of them, and handled us perfectly. As a result, my respect for her has increased tremendously. I only wish she were still around for me to thank her.)
A few years later I was lucky enough to find the whole book and immediately devoured it. I think I can honestly say that it changed my life a great deal. Of course when I was young, hormones frequently replaced logic, but there were times when I was able to think, and act, with some degree of logic.
Mr. Thouless takes the reader through all of the steps and discusses not only the basic principles of logic, but also many of the tricks used to hide and distort: fallacies, false logic, circular logic, and the smoke and mirrors that many people use to prove a point. One of the things that I find most helpful is the “tests” at the end of the book. They can still be difficult to solve unless you have paid careful attention to the book, and careful attention to the tests of logic that he cites.
This is a book that I strongly recommend. Even though I read it many years ago, and have reread it several times, I still have to stop and think on several of the problems. Alas, I still find myself letting emotion come into it, when I am better served by thinking clearly. I doubt if I will ever fully overcome this, but this book helps.
Marilyn Vos Savant has scored the highest IQ ever recorded, somewhere around 220 or so. I enjoy her column in Parade Magazine, and is the only thing I read in it. It’s fun, she is clever , witty, and has a engaging way of writing. This book is mainly about the need for logical thinking in our everyday lives. She also takes on the political establishment, and shows how figures are easily manipulated to give totally false information.
She also quotes several problems that are counter-intuitive, and talks about the many, literally thousands, of irate responses from those who disagreed with her. One of the more interesting examples was a drug test that was 95% correct for a drug-user, and 95% correct for a non-user. Meaning that it gave true negative 95% of the time, and a false positive 5%. She then explains that for a person subject at random and tested the results will be accurate only about 50% of the time!
Her book emphasizes the need to plot things out. To not only reason logically, but to put it on paper and plot out the results. I hope I remember to do this. Right now when arguing with Toni I find that is very logical to agree with her. Whether she is right or wrong is immaterial. If I wins, she hits me, so logic dictates that I lose.
Demonic Males by Wrangham & Peterson
Apes and the Origins of Human Violence
I read this book several years ago, and found it most fascinating and intriguing. I also gained a great deal of ego points, since it reinforced opinions that I had formed many years ago, i.e. that much of the violence of humans is in their genes, and that the primate species is a violent one.
The book deals with the relatives closest to man: the gorilla, the orangutan, and the chimpanzee (both pan troglodyte and the bonobo).
The book is filled with incidents that reflect the closeness of the various species, including murder, raids, prostitution, war, theft, and rape. What amazed me was the recorded incident of rape of a human female by a male orangutan. A female primatologist observed this and tried to help the woman fend off the ape, but to no avail.
I have always been interested in anthropology, cultural as well as physical. Jane Goodall’s work on chimps was the first time it was proven that they were not the comical, peaceful vegetarians that most people thought. Instead there were tough, bright, tool-using, meat-eating hunters that also engaged in murder, random violence, and all of the other fun things that people do. Indeed, it seems that the only difference is that we are just better at it.
Unlike Consilience by Edmund Wilson, the last two chapters of this book fail. The authors try to come up with ways to tame the Demon and fail to understand that violence is a part of nature. That the very aggression that leads to war and violence is also the aggression that leads us to better ourselves, to explore, to achieve, to go to the Moon. Man is violent. That cannot be changed. However, it can be channeled.
One problem is that violence is quite successful. One of the more ludicrous politically correct comments is that “violence never solves anything!”
It solved the issue of slavery, here and all over the world (at least for a time). WWII was solved nicely by violence, so was our separation from Great Britain. Violence may not be a “nice” solution, it may not be the best solution, but all too often it is a solution, and man has never shown any reluctance to employ it. Those that are reluctant, they don’t stay around very long.
In order for the Utopian idea of nonviolence to work, then all people have to be nonviolent. Not just a few, ALL. I don’t think that is possible. And if it were to work, then we would no longer be men. No thanks. I would prefer to live in a violent world and still be a man. Sheephood is not my style.
The Barbarians of Asia: The Peoples of the Steppes From 1600BC by Stuart Legg
I bought this book several years ago, and when I started to read it I was turned off by the first chapter. In the first chapter the author details his journey and the geography of the Trans-Siberian Railway. I put the book down, and did not pick it up again until quite recently. As several of you have pointed out (repeatedly I might add), I am far from perfect, and not picking up the book again was a big mistake.
Mr. Legg uses the first chapter to set the stage for the rest of the book. He breaks down the huge continent of Asia into the Heartland and the Littoral. The Heartland being the immensely vast Steppes and Grasslands that extend into Europe, while the Littoral consist of the countries surrounding it, China, India, Europe, etc.
He continues to set the stage with the development of China, and the earliest invasions known by the steppe nomads. The Great Wall of China was built to keep out the nomads, and was remarkably unsuccessful, but since it wasn’t finished when the original builder, Shih Hwang Ti, died, others continued this futile effort.
What is so interesting is that he details the inner workings, the droughts, the famines, that cause many people to shift. A tribe invades China, is partially successful, then becomes slightly weak and is driven out. They move into grasslands where another tribe has settled. They crowd the other tribe, who crowds another, who packs up and moves, driving other people before it, and before long you have some new people moving into Europe.
Although he does not deal with anything regarding race, it still makes me wonder as to where we all originated. When the Goths, the Angles, Saxons, etc. all seemed to have drifted into Europe from Central Asia, where did we begin? It is doubtful that we will ever have an answer to that.
He is one of the few historians to give any detail about the defeat of Romanus Diogenes at Manzikert in 1071AD. This fateful battle broke the power of Byzantium, and made it easy prey for the Crusaders in 1204AD, which of course led to the Fall of Byzantium in 1453. This led to the Islamic-Turkish attacks on Eastern Europe that led to the Bosnian War just a few years ago. Interesting to think that an otherwise competent general who becomes Emperor, fails to take any precautions and gets butchered, has so much influence a thousand years later.
This is a highly interesting book, and I would recommend it to anyone.
An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson
This is the first of a trilogy that will detail WWII in Europe. The next volume is due in Fall of 2005, and third in Fall of 2008. I find this quite irritating as I want to read them now.
Without a doubt this is the best book I have read dealing with WWII. It is well researched, well written. It is book that does not paint glamorous pictures of our soldiers, our leaders or our allies. It simply tells what happened, what people thought, and what they said. It paints a picture that is quite different from much of the popular view. Although the author does draw a few conclusions, and states his opinions, these are all minor to the narrative, and you cannot help but agreeing with him anyway.
In Fall of l942 the US landed on the coast of North Africa. This was our first actual encounter with the German army. It is a picture of green troops pitted against seasoned combat veterans, green leaders against seasoned generals, and a tale of how everything came together to produce an army that knew how to fight, and did.
I had known that we encountered some resistance from the Vichy French, but I did not realize how much, and how many American lives were lost. It also makes me less willing to cut modern France any slack at all for their anti-American rhetoric and actions.
The book also shows earlier portraits of our generals, and they are not at all how they are seen later. Eisenhower is indecisive and uncertain, and much better at playing politics than at war, Patton is a real jackass and more interested in his own personal glory than anything else. By everyone but the British, Montgomery has been pictured as a vainglorious prima donna more interested in being in charge than of winning. Guess what, everyone is right. What a jerk.
The typical GI of the time was scared, ill-equipped, ill-trained, ill-supplied and ill-led. It took time and experience for the great American War Machine to get cranked up, to teach it men how to kill, and to properly supply them when it did.
The book could have been in two volumes. At 540 pages of text, plus a 140 pages of reference material it was uncomfortable to hold and read. However, I couldn’t put it down, and I would suggest everyone read it.
BLOOD RED ROSES: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD1461
by Veronica Fiorato, Anthea Boylston, and Christopher Knusel
This is a most important book for the serious student of arms and armor and of history. One hundred years after the Battle of Visby, in 1361, there was the Battle of Towton. Visby was important not so much as a turning point in Swedish history, but because the mass graves there survived to the present day and form an invaluable archeological resource. So it is, too, with Towton in England. A mass grave was recently excavated, there was an intense forensic study of the skeletons that were unearthed.
Although there are interesting chapters on Archery, Weapons and Armor by John Waller, Graeme Rimer and Thom Richardson, the real value of the book is the detail regarding the victims.
These appear to be average soldiers of the period, and we learn about the general condition of their health, their teeth, their height, and previous wounds. It is extremely interesting, and confirms many things that have long been suspected. One of the most important is that people were tough and strong, and not near as small as many like to think.
The one flaw in the book is the attempt to pretend that the victims were not murdered. One idea is that they were killed while fleeing the battle. They had thrown away their helmets when a detachment of cavalry attacked. This is why all the wounds are head wounds.
This whole idea falls apart when you consider that the dead had received multiple wounds to the head. A horseman is not quite able to deliver a number of blows to the head, as the recipient would usually start falling, and it would be difficult to reach down and continue to deliver blows. However, multiple blows to the head are very likely when a group is being killed. It is easy to imagine the armed men attacking and hitting hard and often, and even striking while the victim is on the ground. This isn’t fighting, it is killing. Another conjecture was that the men had fallen in the battle, and as the waves of troops passed over them, they were again struck in the head. That doesn’t make any sense either. Occam’s Razor applies here. They were simply prisoners that were killed.
The Wars of the Roses were notoriously brutal, as are all civil wars, so one shouldn’t be surprised at this action. This was the 15th century, and people behaved differently than they do today. But even today such things happen, witness Bosnia and Africa.
But this is merely a quibble on my part. This is a book that I wholeheartedly recommend. Regardless of how the victims met their fate, it is a very important book.
Ghost Soldiers by Hampton Sides
This is the true story of a mission to rescue allied prisoners from the Japanese near the end of WWII.
Frankly, I had never heard of it. It seems that the mission was deliberately hushed up so as not to inflame the American people. The US Army felt the need to rescue these prisoners, and the people would want to know why. After all, they were prisoners of war and the Japanese had signed (but not ratified) the Geneva Accords.
After the invasion of the Philippines it was pretty obvious that the Japanese were losing the war. As they retreated they were faced with the problem of what to do with their POWs. The solution, which launched the raid, was simply to kill them. One camp of 300 was murdered by the simple expedient of luring them into a trench, then pouring gasoline on them and setting them on fire. Out of the three hundred, 11 managed to escape in the turmoil and make it back to US lines. Their story was told, and the rescue mission was launched.
The book tells the story of the rescue mission, and also the story of the prisoners themselves. The Rangers sent on the rescue were a new unit, and most of them had not been in combat. The mission was simple: go about thirty miles deep into occupied territory, kill whatever guards happened to be there, rescue 500 men, believed to be in God awful condition, and bring them 30 odd miles back.
The book is very well written, not flamboyant at all. It is told in a quiet, matter-of-fact tone, and this very quietness seems to emphasize the incredible courage, honor and toughness of the men involved.
One of the most amazing examples of a determination not to die unavenged is told in the beginning when the Japanese are killing the prisoners. One of the prisoners is on fire, and while burning he leaps up, grabs a guard, and will not let go, so that the guard also burns to death!
Mr. Sides is careful to point out and detail the cultural differences between the US and Japan, particularly in the question of prisoners. The Japanese regard any soldier that surrenders as less than human, and treat them much worse than they do animals.
I can understand and even accept this cultural difference. However I also insist that my culture be accepted also. And that calls for people who mistreat others be shot and executed immediately.
This is a book that I would strongly urge everyone to read.
However, I would not recommend the book The Rape of Nanking. I read it, and frankly I wish I hadn’t. Oh, the book is very well written, well documented, and very, very, accurate. I just don’t have that strong a stomach. I don’t think I have to mention that I am not a Pacifist, and blood and gore doesn’t bother me. But I will be the first to admit that the torture, murder, mutilation, just for fun, as done by the Japanese to the Chinese, was more than I wanted to deal with.
But make no mistake; this was not a few aberrant soldiers, but a whole nation that was enjoying what its troops were doing. Two officers engaged in a race to see who could cut off the heads of the most Chinese. This was reported in the Japanese papers, and people followed it with the same enthusiasm that we follow Barry Bonds in his homerun quest.
This is why I have no sympathy, or compassion, for those killed in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My main regret is that we didn’t have about 4 more bombs to drop.
What I also find incomprehensible is the actions of the US Government at the end of the war. So very few Japanese were tried and executed that it appears that we were more concerned with covering war crimes up than actually bringing any of these people to justice. Oh well, I never cared for FDR or Truman anyway.
Regretfully, most Japanese still cling to their idea of racial superiority and their xenophobia.
But do check out Ghost Soldiers.
Guns and Violence: The English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm
This is one of the most engrossing books on guns that I have encountered. I rarely buy books extolling the right to keep and bear arms. It would be, after all, preaching to the choir. However this book starts by dealing with guns and violence in England. But not only does it deal with modern England, it actually starts in the 14th century. Granted that at this time guns were really not available to the common man to use, and availability did not increase for many years. By establishing a baseline level of violence, and comparing that level with the levels that occurred in the years as firearms became more plentiful, she is able to show a correlation between the two. (England has amazingly complete records for the period, and she is able to draw on them.)
Her conclusion: there doesn’t seem to be a correlation. England, despite legends to the contrary, was a fairly peaceful society in the 14th century. Indeed, its levels of violent crime, have always been low. During the Middle Ages most murders involved knives and staffs, fists and feet, and every now and then an ax. No swords are mentioned.
It appears that although there are minor fluctuations, the overall element of violent crime, particularly murder, remained quite low even with the introduction of firearms. In fact, it appears that guns not only do not cause an increase in violence, but seem to have the opposite effect. This is also the opinion of John Lott, the economist who has caused a great stir in a long, detailed, very scholarly work on guns in America, More Guns, Less Violence. After all, there have been many studies that show criminals much prefer unarmed victims.
But that is not the shocking and disturbing facet of this book. What really catches your attention is the erosion of English law and the determination of the government to turn its citizenry into passive sheep, even at the expense of their safety.
Even before Henry VIII made it a law that all Englishmen practice with the bow, it was a given fact that all Englishmen had the right to have weapons to protect themselves and their neighbors. Not only could they do so, it was demanded of them that they do so. The right of self-defense was realized and encoded in their legal system.
Ms. Malcolm carefully details the attacks on the firearms and the whole concept of self-defense until England is in the state it is today.
There are some amusing anecdotes (amusing to me as I don’t live there) including one about an elderly woman who scares off some burglars by pointing a cap gun at them. She is charged and convicted of putting someone in fear of his life from a firearm. Another is about the man who is being beaten and strangled by two men while on a train in the subway. He is about to pass out when he manages to unsheath a sword cane and stab one of them. The attackers are both tried for wounding, while the victim is convicted of carrying a concealed weapon.
She also points out that England has very few police per capita. Quite honestly, she makes a very good case for any one desiring to engage in a life of crime to move to England. Certainly it strikes me that it would be profitable. Even if you’re caught, you can always plead that it was parents abusing you that made you do this, and probably get off completely.
This should be a must read for anyone who thinks “it can’t happen here.”
FICTION REVIEWS:
The Mighty Manslayer & The Curved Saber both by Harold Lamb
Harold Lamb was a popular historical biographer who wrote popular biographies of major figures, including those Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Tamerlane, Hannibal, Charlemagne and many others. Even today serious historians give him a great deal of credit for the accuracy of his histories. This in itself is strange, as most serious historians love to quibble with anyone who writes a popular work on any historical subject.
But Lamb was also a prolific story teller, and a pretty good one at that. Like all pulp and magazine writers, his quality varies, and some of the plots are rather similar, but all are entertaining. I have read a great many of his tales, but the ones listed above are my favorites. I had not read them in many years, and recently old age has made a sudden onslaught, so I started to read of Khlit once again, to bolster my own battle against the dread demon, Elli.
The opening novel of this two-part series takes place at the end of the 16th century. Khlit is a Zaporogian Cossack, called the Wolf, he of the Curved Saber. Khlit is rather old for a Cossack, somewhere in his early sixties. At a council meeting the local hetman says that although Khlit is quite famous as a warrior, it is now time for him to hang up his sword and enter into a monastery, there to pray for the remission of his sins. (Curiously, this was a rather common practice of the times.) Khlit replies that this is for those who have lost the taste for blood. That hasn’t happened to me, and when you hear of my deeds you will want me back, but I won’t return because a Wolf does not run with jackals. There is much that he wishes to see, and he heads into Central Asia.
Khlit carries a strangely curved saber, beautifully made, and with an inscription on the blade. The sword has been given to him by his father, and so on, from the original owner, Kaidu, grandson of Genghis Khan, and Khan of the Golden Horde. Khlit knows this, but has never made an issue of it. (Toni and I saw such a saber at the Metropolitan, and it dated from the time of Kaidu. A beautiful sword, slightly curved, but differently curved than the Cossack Shashqua, with a longer point and a distinct back edge.)
I will admit that I find it most entertaining to find a young hero (early sixties) who also ages. He eventually retires a little early (in my opinion), somewhere in his early 70’s and passes his sword on to his nephew. But I can forgive his early retirement, for Khlit is not like other sword swingers. Although a superb swordsman, he is above all, crafty, clever, wise and devious. He is not stupid, and will not stick his head in a lion’s mouth, and then kick it in the stomach.
The adventures of the two books take him through Central Asia, where he rides with Mongols, and even assumes (for awhile) the title of KhaKhan. He adventures in China, then down into India, and once again back to the steppes of the Don, the Dnieper and the Volga rivers.
Lamb traveled these areas extensively, and studied them quite well. He is a little nicer to the Moslems than I would have been, but he was writing in a time when there was never a threat from Islam. He is also knowledgeable about India, and even mentions Dehra Dun, where the main office of Windlass are located. I have been there quite a bit so can vouch for his verisimilitude about that place.
The swordplay is not accurate by any means, and I doubt if Lamb had any real knowledge of it. But he writes it well, and all in all, the books are a lot of fun.
They are particularly enjoyable if you are tired of young, good looking and well built heroes. Bah, I feel more at ease with older graybeards who can swill corn brandy with ease, and also lop off a few heads for the fun of it.
The Long Ships by Frans G. Bengtsson
I first read this in 1954, and have reread it many time since then. It is always a delight. Hollywood bought the rights to the book, and many years ago made a truly horrible movie based on really nothing in the book except the title.
Recently I had to go to the doctor’s office for a check up, and the book was in the car, having been returned from a loan. In order to have something to read, I took it in, and immediately was once again enthralled and immersed in the Nordic world of the end of the 10th century. Harald Bluetooth is on the throne of Norway, and Thane Toste, a Viking, is getting set to go aviking.
He has three sons, one of whom left many years ago, and the other two, Odd and Orm, are still at home. Orm is the younger and because he once had a cold, his mother is constantly frightened for his health. She is quite concerned, and sees that he gets the choicest meats. None of this pleases Toste or Odd, but Orm enjoys it.
At his mother’s insistence, Orm is forced to stay home and not go aviking with father and brother, but he makes his first voyage anyway: he is kidnapped by other Viking raiders, and is allowed to row in the place of the man he killed trying to defend his sheep that the raiders were stealing.
These Vikings raid a few ships, have some adventures, but then are attacked by Moslems when they go into the Mediterranean. Captured, they are forced to row on the galleys, but are eventually set free and serve the Lord Al Mansur in his war against t | 
