I have to disagree about the deadliness of a slash versus a thrust. A slash is far more likely to be blocked by something non-vital coming in. Sure, it sucks to get your arm mangled, but it's better than beheading. Also, a slash to the torso is more likely to be stopped by a rib. Also, a thrust travels a straight line, making it difficult to judge distance, and very quick. It is also more likely to penetrate deep enough to do real damage (heart, lungs, liver, etc). I agree that a slash probably has more initial stopping power, but the thrust is more "deadly".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nekogami13:
Response to several posts-in no particuar order:some of you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the sword arts were developed for dueling.They were not.They were developed for battlefield use.Yes, even western arts that fencing came from were once battlefield arts.[/QUOTE]

True, and yet the irony is that the Japanese katana is still a superb dueling weapon - possibly the best ever made. In fact, I would argue that the katana is actually better suited to dueling than it is to battlefield use. The design of the katana's blade makes it one of the best swords for cutting through flesh. It is fast to draw, it's deceptively quick, and it has a cutting tip that combines the range of a thrusting weapon with the power of a cutting weapon. All qualities that are very useful in a duel.

On the other hand, a katana is poorly suited to fighting someone wearing armour. Against armour, you ideally want a powerful thrusting weapon, not the fast drawcuts of a katana. A spear, lance or pike is probably the best choice. A pickaxe, like the Europeans used to put on the reverse side of many maces, can do the job. As for swords, a straight-edged blade that's better suited to thrusting will probably give you a better chance.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamoni:
I have to disagree about the deadliness of a slash versus a thrust. A slash is far more likely to be blocked by something non-vital coming in. Sure, it sucks to get your arm mangled, but it's better than beheading. Also, a slash to the torso is more likely to be stopped by a rib. Also, a thrust travels a straight line, making it difficult to judge distance, and very quick. It is also more likely to penetrate deep enough to do real damage (heart, lungs, liver, etc). I agree that a slash probably has more initial stopping power, but the thrust is more "deadly".[/QUOTE]

A thrust is a straightline attack, I can just step to the side. Any attack has drawbacks. If your arm gets "mangled" you are dead. Shock sets in and you bleed to death, if you did survive-chances were you die from infection-remember, when blade weapons were king, medical science was very primitive.

as for suggested readings mine would be The Book Of The Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi (probably already suggested) and Hagakure also known as the book of the samurai by Yamamoto Tsunetomo. Both very good books that talk about the philisophical side of swordsmanship. Plus The Book Of The Five Rings has some cool moves. Thats all i know of on philosophy.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rand:
from what ive read and seen the duels didnt last long enough to block the swords never came in contact

the duel involved one or two hits average

atleast thats what ive heard


also the ninja didnt have any type of code like samurai samurai had bushido the ninja only harmed those that needed to be punished but they had no code to killing thes people[/QUOTE]


I'd like to disagree with you on this. you make the ninja seem bad. they were doing the same job as the samurai but the samurai were used for war where the ninja were used for assasinations. Also ninja did have a code of killing, i forgot what it was called but i'm very sure they just didn't go around killing whoever they decided needed to be killed as samurai did do sometimes, even though bushido forbid it in some ways it also emplyed that it had to be done and was necessary to keep respect among those not as important as the samurai.