double vs single edged, a possible reason

[Guest]

In order to find out why double edged swords were preferred to single edged ones, I conducted some experiments with knives of different blade shapes. I found out something interesting, but I'll describe the experiments first:
A) thrusts into cardboard with 1) double edged dagger 2) single edged knife with point on the middle axis of the blade3) single edged knife with off axis (back) point; thrust were executed keeping a light grip wearing a glove to study the behavior of blades during penetration.
B) similar actions with wooden knife of the previous shapes against an hard surface
Conclusions:
1) the single edged blade with "middle point" generates great friction on the unedged side, this LIMITS PENETRATION and makes the weapon turn in the hand somewhat.
2) single edged blade with point located back rocks in the hand because the point is not on the same axis with the force you apply, the way to correctly stab with this blade shape is to thrust with a circular movement (up or down, left or right) that drives the point into the target, this requires good judging of distance or you'll hit to a side of the intended point.
C) the double edged symmetrical blade is the best penetrating of all when you limit yourself to stright stabs, penetrates more with less effort, the weapon does not torque in the hand.
Maybe this is a reason for the preference given to double edged swords, and it is a consequence of the preference given to the thrust.

[GaryGrzybek]

This is possible but I can think of several other things. Blades that are beveled to an edge on both sides will obviously make the sword lighter due to less material. Blades that have cutting edges on both sides have an advantage in that if one edge is damaged you can use the other. And also, there are certain techniques that involve the use of the short or false edge thus requiring a double edge blade.

I know others will add or correct but that's my take anyway <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

I've been too generic, my inquiry is about the asymmentrical hilted sideswords of the xvi to xviii century, we see double edged ones dominate the field at first, then the period ends with the predominance of sabres in the military field in xix cent.. In that long period light and heavy, double edged and single edged weapons existed side to side and were used the one against the other. My problem is that I do not really figure out what happened and why. My inquiry is limited to the battlefield enviroment, I do not consider duels.

By the way not all single edged blades are heavy, I've handled light and sweet sabres, some single edged blades were heavy indeed, others were not, the "paloscio" is defined as an hunting dagger and it's a light single edged weapon, but was used by chivalry militias. I doubt that all single edged spadroons are heavier than the scottish broad sword.

[George Turner]

For the same outside dimensions you can form a single edged blade by moving the central spine from the middle of both edges, all the way to the back edge. The width, thickness, and cross sectional area remain the same, as does the side-to-side stiffness. The overall edge angle (or taper?) is cut in half.

I'm also curious about the shift from a truly symmetric double-edged sword, like the earlier ones where you can't really tell false edge from true edge, to the straight bladed basket hilts, like schiavonnas and such. It looks like once the symmetry is broken (the knuckle guard prevents truly reversing the edges) they started putting in a spine on the false edge, in the strong. Even many cavalry sabers preserved this design, with a double edged tip and single edged forte. This implies that the strong portion of the false edge had no offensive uses, at least in that style of swordsmanship.

On a related subject, the falchion looks like a giant pocket knife or hunting blade. I'm guessing that this particular blade shape is a Western cultural artifact. Could our common buck-knife shape be related to the Falchion? Many kitchen knives and such have straight spines, not this shape, so it doesn't seem to critically important for utility. It's just a common knife shape that we're used to seeing. Could this shape have come from being a junior version of a falchion, sort of a matching set? Or could a falchion be a scale up version of an existing, common knife shape? Just a thought, since as far as I know there isn't a traditional Asian buck-knife shape, though by now I'm sure this common knife shape is everywhere.

Pondering on...

George Turner
ARMA in KY

[Guest]

I'm wondering how much influence did the karabela and the kilij have on military european swormanship and swordmaking.
Maybe they started the sabre trend, sure the yelman of the kilij soon went out of the window, I think for a matter of confort.

I can't not agree with Mac Bane on the weight matter, I'm a small man, a boy in dimentions, so I' m confined to light blades. There is another reason for preferring light blades: the mixed use of edged weapons and firearms common in the 500' to 700 age, if you used an heavy blade, your hand will treble more than if you used a light one. In my experience you can still shoot a pistol well enough to get center mass hits at distances of 10 (and even more) meters, after sparring with a spadroon. Not so with heavier swords.

Yet the real question remains: did post C&amp;T military blades handle the combat enviroment better than C&amp;T double edged swords? I'm willing to admit it only in the case of lighter blades that could perform as well the C&amp;T sword, surely not in the case of heavier blades, double or single edged that is, as long as armors are not weared.

Falchions themselves underwent some modifications: in Hutton's "the sword and the centuries" p. 299 you see a falchion duel picture, falchions depitched are not related to the big knife, they look like karabelas' blades on european hilts.

Buy
Carlo