A real two-bladed sword!

[Orius]

As for the specific issue of two-ended weapons ala two bladed sword and axe, dire flail etc., they are patently stupid weapons unusable in any real conflict. Of course, many spears and pole-arms might have a secondary offensive capability on the other end in the form of a sharpened butt, a conuterbalancing weight, or even a small spear blade (very rarely) but the ratio of haft to weapon is rather more significant.

You're foretting (probably on purpose and I don't blame you) the Most Retarded D&D Weapon Evar: the gyrspike. A stupid idea, a stupid weapon, and I can't picture any warrior with a low enough Int to even remotely consider wielding it.

 

[eyebeams]

Now you're just being obnoxious. There is such a thing as Eastern Martial Arts. (Funny, I never thought I'd have to say that, but sometimes WMA people... There is such a thing as too far.) Kwan Do is used at least as some sort of demonstration weapon in Wu Shu and other Asian arts. That in and of itself has merit. If you were to question its combat efficiency, I wouldn't know, never having seen it used in full-contact simulation. But you chose to paint broad insults instead about its use "in any way."

A Kwandao? It's a halberd with a big blade, named after a deified general. Sometimes it has a spike on one end. It's probably the second best battlefield weapon after a spear. Anybody who says a halberd is useless is smoking crack, and that's a damn fact. Swords are better civil weapons, though.

Yeah, WMA. Mostly, great guys. You get the odd East vs West troll, but the satisfying thing to remember is that a significant amount of the information that allows interpretation of fectbuchs comes from looking as similar things in Asian arts. I'm not big on Clements ever since I saw him do some test cutting to disprove what he thought were traditional pull cuts -- and really, really weren't -- and saw him misrepresent the role of the tatami and stand in test cutting (yeah, any sword can cut through matts and dowels, but that's not the point).

Ok, let's look at the damn double-sword pictured above. It pretty much sucks. There are, however, Thai and Chinese weapons that are a little more sensibly put together, where the blades compose 1/3rd of the weapon at most. These weapons are like the Monk's Spade in that the whole idea is to have a weapon that you can adapt staff skills to. Anybody who is afraid of cutting themselves with one of these would be afraid of whacking themselves with a staff, too, which pretty much makes them incompetent to use either. It's not as flexible as a staff, though, because you lose one of the two or three major grips. Breaking it in half is not a big deal, since a weapon like this would typically be reinforced with metal strips and heavy laquering.

Is it a practical weapon? Not as practical as a halberd or sword, by my reckoning, but it has a bit of reach and you can use bog-standard staff techniques with it. My opinion? Not the best weapon in the world, but a skilled user could make it functional.

The Batleth is terrible. It's a two handed Wind-Fire Wheel, which is like saying you like a spiked gauntlet so much that a giant one on a stick would be even cooler. The very worst weapon, though, is a tie between the double scimitar and the gnomish pick-hammer, both of which are pretty much designed for folks who want to share the pain with their enemy.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Now you're just being obnoxious. There is such a thing as Eastern Martial Arts. (Funny, I never thought I'd have to say that, but sometimes WMA people... There is such a thing as too far.) Kwan Do is used at least as some sort of demonstration weapon in Wu Shu and other Asian arts. That in and of itself has merit. If you were to question its combat efficiency, I wouldn't know, never having seen it used in full-contact simulation. But you chose to paint broad insults instead about its use "in any way."

I wasn't talking about the Kwan Do, I was talking about the double sword at the start of this thread.

I will say this however, I would be suspicious of any weapon which isn't used in full contact full force sparring, the emphasis on 'demonstrations' is exactly what is wrong with a lot of EMA. I have seen recent discussions by fencers in Hong Kong familiar with both Chinese (Jian and Dao) fencing, Japanese Kendo, and WMA, who point out this deficiency with some EMA weapon systems. They also specifically mentioned certain weapons, such as butterfly swords for example , which were supposed to be effective against spears according to some EMA doctrines, but never were in sparring.

On the other hand, I'm not familiar with a Kwan Do, but a Halberd is an excellent weapon, Swiss peasants and burghers used them to beat the tar out of Austrian Knights at Morgarten among many other places.

Also, I am not, mind you, suggesting that EMA for hand to hand is inefficient in any way. Since the advent of UFC / Pride especially, more and more EMA systems incorporate a great deal of full contact sparring. Sparring is the medicine which keeps martial arts honest.

The problem with weapon fighting until very recently has been the lack of sparring with weapons due to a lack of availability of weapons which were both safe and handled in a realistic manner. This has begun to change as well and we will probably see a lot of improvement in EMA weapons combat in the next few years (especially since there has been a simultaneous revival of interest in the more ancient original fighting doctrines)


DB

 

[olethros]

The weapon depicted in that link is not a double weapon, it's fanciful martial arts version of a rather typical pole-arm, with a primary striking blade on one end and a rather fancifcl butt-spike on the other. Not only does it have a MUCH bigger haft to blade ratio than any of the double weapons in the PHB, it also has a primary and a secondary fighting point, unlike say a double sword.
DB

Um, it's not a fanciful weapon at all. It's a big halberd. How is this any more fanciful than the myraid of halberd type weapons found in the history of Western warfare?

I don't have any historical sources to cite here, but I believe the Asian weapons Drifter Bob is so dismissive of weren't really weapons at all, but modified farming implements that were used because peasants weren't allowed to have weapons. Like if European peasants started to train secretly with their pitchforks and scythes

I think it's important to note that while lots of Karate weapons have their sources in farming tools, there's lots of weapons found in other eastern martial arts that have no relation to farming tools. Only a few of the examples in the following link of Kung Fu weapons could be derived from farming implements.

http://www.wahlum.com/sifugeorgekee/images/weapons.gif

For more info on the history of Kung Fu weapons, you can check out "Ancient Chinese Weapons" by Dr. Jwing-Ming Yang.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Um, it's not a fanciful weapon at all. It's a big halberd. How is this any more fanciful than the myraid of halberd type weapons found in the history of Western warfare?.

If we are talking about the weapon depicted here:

http://www.wahlumdenver.com/images/Weapons/kwan do.JPG

It seemed to be chrome plated in parts or maybe covered in foil, and has serrations or wave-bladed features which look decorative to me, and frankly the blades on both ends looked like flimsy sheet metal. That is all I meant. It did not have the appearance of a functional halberd, like say, this one....

http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=54

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

You're foretting (probably on purpose and I don't blame you) the Most Retarded D&D Weapon Evar: the gyrspike. A stupid idea, a stupid weapon, and I can't picture any warrior with a low enough Int to even remotely consider wielding it.

I think I missed this one, can you post a link?

I have to also give honorable mention to a sword - bow combination I saw the other day, some elvish weapon if I remember....

DB

 

[aurance]

I wasn't talking about the Kwan Do, I was talking about the double sword at the start of this thread.

Your second "Darwin Awards" jab was posted as a reply to the Kwan Do picture.

I will say this however, I would be suspicious of any weapon which isn't used in full contact full force sparring, the emphasis on 'demonstrations' is exactly what is wrong with a lot of EMA. I have seen recent discussions by fencers in Hong Kong familiar with both Chinese (Jian and Dao) fencing, Japanese Kendo, and WMA, who point out this deficiency with some EMA weapon systems. They also specifically mentioned certain weapons, such as butterfly swords for example , which were supposed to be effective against spears according to some EMA doctrines, but never were in sparring.

Buddy, there isn't anything "exactly wrong" with emphasis on demonstrations on EMA. The last time I checked, combat effective or not, fighting with swords and spears has way past its prime, whether we're talking about Western or Eastern spheres. The goal of studying these arts today is to improve your mind and body - Studying a terribly ineffective demonstration art will help you just as much with those goals as studying a real, deadly sword/spear art.

A caveat here. I agree that you should call a spade a spade. A style which is obviously an ineffective combat art shouldn't be advertised as a "realistic combat style" by any means, but those flowery arty styles aren't wrong in the modern context.

The problem with weapon fighting until very recently has been the lack of sparring with weapons due to a lack of availability of weapons which were both safe and handled in a realistic manner. This has begun to change as well and we will probably see a lot of improvement in EMA weapons combat in the next few years (especially since there has been a simultaneous revival of interest in the more ancient original fighting doctrines)

I dunno. Is this real improvement? It certainly is nice to have a variety of styles, but until our society starts settling life-and-death conflicts with bladed weapons again I wouldn't say combat effective arts are any better or worse.

 

[aurance]

I think I missed this one, can you post a link?

I have to also give honorable mention to a sword - bow combination I saw the other day, some elvish weapon if I remember....

DB

Gyrspike... Picture, if you will, a one-handed sword, but with a spiked-ball-and-chain hanging off the end of the hilt. Nice, eh?

 

[Drifter Bob]

Your second "Darwin Awards" jab was posted as a reply to the Kwan Do picture.

I was still discussing the double sword, and responding to the idea that the image of the kwan do was posted to support the theory of it's validity. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

Buddy, there isn't anything "exactly wrong" with emphasis on demonstrations on EMA. The last time I checked, combat effective or not, fighting with swords and spears has way past its prime, whether we're talking about Western or Eastern spheres. The goal of studying these arts today is to improve your mind and body - Studying a terribly ineffective demonstration art will help you just as much with those goals as studying a real, deadly sword/spear art.
(snip)
those flowery arty styles aren't wrong in the modern context.

Well 'buddy', I agree there is nothing wrong with artistic demonstrations inherently, there is nothing wrong with ballet, for example. But ballet does not represent itself as a 'martial' art. EMA or WMA techniques which become more about demonstration, meditation etc., should describe themselves as such, as Tai Chi does for example. But a MARTIAL art has to do with fighting by definition.

I dunno. Is this real improvement? It certainly is nice to have a variety of styles, but until our society starts settling life-and-death conflicts with bladed weapons again I wouldn't say combat effective arts are any better or worse.

Believe it or not, fights do sometimes occur with hand weapons. In many parts of the world in fact where guns have been effectively outlawed, such as England, Australia, and Japan, knowing how to fight with a stick can be a very useful modern skill. It has proven very useful and practical to me in my life.

Also, learning how to effectively fight with weapons is the key to learning how to effectively fight unarmed. This is true in many of the more effective EMA unarmed techniques. Aikido for example, and may forms of Chinese unarmed fighting.

Irregardless, as I said before, if it purports to be a martial art, then the more effective it is at helping you win fights the better it is. If it's primarily about dance, or meditation, then you can call it somehting else, 'quasi-martial ballet' perhaps.


DB

 

[eyebeams]

I will say this however, I would be suspicious of any weapon which isn't used in full contact full force sparring, the emphasis on 'demonstrations' is exactly what is wrong with a lot of EMA. I have seen recent discussions by fencers in Hong Kong familiar with both Chinese (Jian and Dao) fencing, Japanese Kendo, and WMA, who point out this deficiency with some EMA weapon systems. They also specifically mentioned certain weapons, such as butterfly swords for example , which were supposed to be effective against spears according to some EMA doctrines, but never were in sparring.

That's a rather wacky misrepresentation of what those drills are about. Butterfly swords are civillian weapons. Spears are military weapons. You train one against the other for conceptual purposes, not to rely on the butterfly sword against the spear. Spear drills are good ways to train trapping range; I'm not aware of any "doctrine" that actually recommends their their use against a spear.

As for jian and dao: I've fenced foil and epee, trained on some rapier, done a bit of kali and kendo, and learned a bit of jian and dao. The basic assumptions about what kind of engagements you get in with these weapons are makedly different to the point where there is little useful basis for comparison. Dao techniques generally assume a multi-person battlefield engagement, where someone trained with a rapier would get their ass handed to them. A jian is a multipurpose weapon of the gentry, as is a katana; both are meant to do double duty as a military and civil weapon. Rapiers and their successors are civillian weapons.

Without an understanding of the context that belongs to each weapon, comparative statements about their effectiveness are meaningless.

Also, I am not, mind you, suggesting that EMA for hand to hand is inefficient in any way. Since the advent of UFC / Pride especially, more and more EMA systems incorporate a great deal of full contact sparring. Sparring is the medicine which keeps martial arts honest.

Uh, most Asian traditions have had full contact regimens for most of their existence, dude. And most of these regimens only have a tangential relationship to the ability of an average person to protect themselves. Again, context. Many arts are primarily civil defense systems; others are archaic military systems, and still others are sports. Full contact events prove that in controlled conditions with the benefit of an athletic development cycle, athletes will kick ass if they have a basic roster of techniques -- or not. Remember the Kimo Loepoldo fiasco? Joe Son? Tank Abbot? In controlled conditions, what you basically discover that the most important things are strength and the luxury of extended mat time.

(It's important to note that the fallacy of every art being treated the same works both ways, as the contests between Choi-li Fut and Muay Thai artists proved decades ago. Choi-li Fut is a terrible ring art, but a pretty good civil art.)

The idea that the ring is the arbiter of street effectiveness for the average person in bunk. Compare and contrast with the regimens used by normal people who want to learn actual self-protection skills -- like women's and police defensive systems. You'll quickly discover that tactical considerations like time pressure, the environment and the psychology of the engagement bring these groups back to "useless" methods like prearranged drills. And they work, too.

The problem with weapon fighting until very recently has been the lack of sparring with weapons due to a lack of availability of weapons which were both safe and handled in a realistic manner. This has begun to change as well and we will probably see a lot of improvement in EMA weapons combat in the next few years (especially since there has been a simultaneous revival of interest in the more ancient original fighting doctrines)

Well, if Asian arts get better, then WMAers will be leant more tools to interpret fectbuchs and such. But such broad characterizations of other systems is, for the most part, an expression of ideology, not fact.