Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword (33 page)

Ratti, Oscar and Adele Westbrook,
Secrets of the Samurai: The Martial Arts of Feudal Japan.
Castle Books, Edison, 1973.

Robinson, H. Russell,
Japanese Arms and Armor.
Crown Publishing, New York, 1969.

Sato, Kanzan, translated and adapted by Joe Earle,
The Japanese Sword
. Kodansha International and Shibundo, Tokyo and New York, 1983.

Sinclaire, Clive,
Samurai: The Weapons and Spirit of the Japanese Warrior
The Lyons Press, Guilford. First published 2001.

Turnbull
,
Stephen,
Battles of the Samurai.
Arms and Armour Press, London, 1987.

In the Far East there is always some confusion about what constitutes a two-hand sword. The Japanese katana is almost always used with two hands, but is essentially a single-handed sword. Although the medieval Japanese were quite small in stature, usually in the area of 5 feet 2 inches, the katana is certainly light enough to be used easily with one hand.

The great Japanese swordsman Miyamoto Musashi (1584–1645), perfected his two-sword school, using the short waskazashi in one hand and the katana in the other. So you can see that even then it was known that the katana was not a true two-hand sword.

However, the Japanese did have a true two-hander, and it was quite a ferocious weapon! This was the no dachi, as mentioned in the previous chapter. The sword shape is the same as the katana; it is just really big, with an overall length of from five-and-a-half feet to well over six feet in length. It was carried in a scabbard, but never worn, just carried. The scabbard was thrown aside when the action started, and like the Scots and others, the feeling was that you could always find the scabbard if you survived, and if you didn't, who cared?

I have read of a sword in a Japanese museum that is so large that the owner needed a companion to help him unsheathe the sword! I don't think that qualifies as a two hand-sword, but rather as a two-
man
sword.

The Japanese referred to these swords as "field swords," or usually, "horse killing swords." Certainly they would be big enough to kill a horse and rider if it hit the two right. Both names strike me as pretty accurate. Certainly in the wild melee and confusion of battle, a large cutting sword could be most effective. There are reports of these swords with blades over 4 feet in length and grips of 3 feet! That is seven feet of sword! These are pure battle swords, and from what I have been able to gather, there was no real "technique" in using them, other than swinging hard and fast.

What I find interesting, and have never been able to get information on, is the forging and tempering of these swords. I have been able to examine two of these swords, both in the area of six feet in length, and the blades were as attractive and well finished as any of the old katanas. The temper line on both swords was a soft wave pattern, and was quite distinct. Both were quite beautiful. Obviously these were not cheap, readymade swords, but had been well made, and to even my untrained eye, made for a high-ranking individual.

Curiously, the Japanese never seemed to have used hand-held shields. They have shields, what the Europeans would have called mantlets or pavises, upright shields for archers to protect them from enemy arrows. Even in the proto-historic age of Japan the warriors seem to have developed armor more and excluded the shield. This would explain their devotion to the two-handed weapon.

The Chinese were not reluctant to use shields, both for their foot soldiers and their cavalry. As a result, they had many one-handed swords, both sabers and what is now referred to as the "tai chi" sword. But a large number of their swords have grips that were easily long enough for two hands, but were light enough for use with one hand. Unfortunately there has not been a serious detailed study of Chinese edged weapons. This is a shame as many of their swords are quite beautiful.

Original Chinese late Qing dynasty sword, 31.5 inches overall length. HRC553.

After the Boxer Rebellion in the early 19th century, many Chinese swords were brought back to the US and Great Britain. These are wide-bladed swords with almost no point, but terrific cutting weapons. With a two-hand grip they have the power of a good hefty axe when they connect. There is some confusion with Chinese names for these blades, which happens with a language as complex as Chinese and with so many dialects. Over here they are frequently referred to as "war swords."

Chinese beheading swords were always two-handed, and were much larger than the European version. The average is a very large and scary sword. The total length was often about five feet, evenly split between blade and handle. I had one many years ago, and in holding it you could easily see that it was only good for a downward blow, and far too clumsy to be a fighting sword.

One of the most ignored swords of the area is the Korean sword. Now, I do not think anyone can say for sure whether the Japanese influenced the Koreans, or the Koreans influenced the Japanese, and they seem to argue about it incessantly. But the two swords are very close and hard to tell apart.

The Korean sword usually has a smaller tsuba (guard) and the blade is often slightly less curved than the katana. Each has devoted adherents and each country had many schools of sword play (and still has a few). The katana has so dominated the modern sword scene that the Korean sword is either ignored or considered just another katana. This is another sword that I would like to see studied more thoroughly.

India made and used two-handed swords, but not to a great degree. Since the left hand was often used to carry the shield, two-handed swords were fairly rare. But they were used, and are rather strange looking swords. Not at all like you might expect, given the Indian preference for the curved sword. These are straight, double-edged swords with a blade well over 2-1/2 feet in length, and a handle length about 20 inches. What is curious about these swords is that the grip is often separated with two additional pommels that create three grip sections. This allows you to extend the sword's length, and also to close up on it and use it as a shorter weapon. These globular pommels are usually fluted brass and are brazed to hollow steel grips. A common practice in India was to put a small pointed knife into these hollow pommels.

Indopersian shield, circa 1850. HRC534.

The Nagas of Assam, located in the eastern part of India, had two-handed swords that were also somewhat strange. These were slightly shorter, generally about 4 feet total length, with blade lengths just over 2 feet. The grip was divided into two sections, each with a crossguard. The blades were slightly curved, single-edged, with good sharp points. The Nagas are considered an aboriginal race and their swords were rather primitive in construction and not near as finely made as most of the Indian metalwork of the period.

Curved Indo-Persian talwar, circa 1850, 33.5 inches overall length. HRC509.

There is a lot of discussion regarding two-handed swords among sword nuts. Is a two-hander better than a sword and shield? Which is the best sword—katana, Swiss/German two-hander, etc.? This is one of those endless arguments. In this day and age of .45s and .223s it may be foolish, but it sure is fun.

Assam two-handed sword.
Antique Indopersian helmet, circa 1850. HRC525.

LaRocca, Donald J., et al.,
Warriors of the Himalayas: Rediscovering the Arms and Armor of Tibet
. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2006.

Rawson, P.S.,
The Indian Sword
. Arco Publishing Company, New York, 1969.

Properly this subject needs to be dealt with in two sections; North African and sub-Saharan African. Although there is some overlap both in weapons and geography, there is enough of a distinct difference to warrant this.

African musele short sword, 20 inches overall length. HRC555.