The Tactical Sword

Of all of the sword techniques I have studied and practiced to date, I have come to the conclusion that fencing as it applies to the death of the opponent can be divided into two main disciplines: The western school of the jab and the eastern school of the slash.

The Jab school seems to be historically most interested in achieving the most effective geometry for impaling an opponent or chopping him down. Few of the techniques for the most prevalent dueling weapons of this school seem to indicate interest in slicing through the flesh of an opponent. This is likely due to the refinement of the armor of the region and the gentlemanly air that prevented the gentry from brandishing heavy war swords in unarmored duels. In all cases, the requirement for the weapon was a quick kill – regardless of the enemy’s defense.

The Slash school of the east seems most dominated by the need to rend flesh and bone with economy of movement and minimal effort. Weapons of this school seem most aimed at maintaining a keen edge rather than a sturdy geometry, calling for a greater focus on metallurgy and polish. These weapons, though not as universally hardy as the weapons of the Jab school, are generally far sharper and tend to cut soft targets with ease.
The Slash school seems to shy away from stabbing, and most of its weapons are curved to accommodate the arc of a slicing swing.

The arts of each school are tailored to their weapons, making their differences irreconcilable in practice. However, I have found that some motions work well in both cases; I have come to consider these as ‘universal’ techniques. An example of this would be the stab at the throat of face. Almost every sword discipline has a similar technique, which is used to distract or disable a less-experienced opponent. Both western and eastern fencing disciplines have a stab to the collar as well – a very effective and fast technique for dispatching a foe from a variety of starting positions.

Since most of the more prominent techniques of the given schools are specific to the intended weapons of each particular ‘way’ of fighting, one must practice with many weapons before one can hope understand enough universal technique to begin hybridizing disciplines. It was not until after much study and having endured many matches both won and lost with various weapons and instructors that I began to search for the sword that would accommodate the bulk of the most effective techniques of each school. It was in this search that I realized several things must be in place before the weapon can be chosen: one must be strong enough to effectively perform the most powerful techniques of the biggest swords and agile enough to effectively perform the fastest of the techniques designed for the lightest sword. A lot of this requires training on the part of the practitioner. Footwork changes with certain weapons, as does range, as does recovery time between techniques. More focus should be applied to the improvement of the body and self awareness than to the ‘pros and cons’ of a given instrument. The “paper-rock-scissors” approach of “This sword beats that sword” can never be universally applied, though it might be universally true to say “This person is a better swordsman than that person,” A sword big enough to kill a horse and rider at once might have a tremendous amount of cutting power, but one wielding it might easily suffer defeat at the tip of a foil with no cutting edge at all. It is a matter of the swordsman and his ability to adapt to the weapons he and his opponent have at the time. One must think about this carefully during training and maintain balance at all times.

My research brought me to the determination that the essential design of a sword that could be used to perform the most ‘universal techniques’ would be the early American (made in Germany) cavalry saber or the shobu zukuri katana. The reason for my choosing these two weapons is their similar shape and the fact that they can be wielded properly in a variety of circumstances. Both are heavier and straighter than others of the same breed, but both maintain a stable cutting curvature and a sturdy grip. Both can be wielded one-handed by either the right or left hand, or with both hands (hand and a half on the saber). And both have a well-designed, penetrative tip. Both are designed to hold an edge of exceeding sharpness and are relatively easy to clean and maintain.
The differences would be that the katana could be used with greater slashing power because of its oversized grip, but it is more finicky with maintenance and needs regular polishing to avoid visible surface corrosion. Also, the katana can not perform a parrying return cut without first turning the wrist, which may be impossible in certain circumstances. The saber is known to have an edge that proceeds a few inches along the ridge (the back) of the blade from the tip, allowing for a very fast and disorienting (if not fatal) return stroke in the event of a missed primary stroke. However, the saber is traditionally a bit longer than a shobu zukuri blade, making rapid attacks and overall control more difficult. Both are designed with unarmored melee in mind and can be used on horseback or on foot. They can both jab quickly and slash most effectively. Both are heavy for their breed and can take considerable abuse from other weapons before loosing their effectiveness in battle. Also, either one can be used in tandem with a smaller weapon given enough training. In my opinion, Kensei Miyamoto Musashi might have been fascinated by the design of the cavalry saber, since he advocated a one-handed sword style in a time and place where most men trained to wield the long sword with both hands. The similarities and differences between the two should be given much thought, but it is their ability to adopt a great variety of universal and specialized techniques from both schools that causes them to stand out in the eyes of a tactician. Though it is important to train with all weapons in order to properly understand the arts of warfare, it seems that training with the ‘sword’ should be focused upon weapons that are most universally applicable in actual combat with other swordsmen.