Talk:Swordsmanship

Revamp

No Mention of the French?

I find strange the fact that France is not even mentioned in this page. Starting with the "Livre de Taille" (1292) to the "Académie d'Armes de France" 1569, France has a long history of swordsmanship. I am not confident enough of my skills as a writer and amateur historian to create a French section on this page but it certainly would have its place. Cordialement, Renaud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.133.186.53 (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

As you may have noticed, the main article has been revamped to include swordsmanship on a global scale. To provide this information without a massive article, I think it would be best to follow the WP:SS type of page design. This will allow us to provide succinct general information with wikilinks to more in depth and detailed articles that deal with a specific subsections of swordsmanship, be it swords themselves, schools, masters, or the tactical deployment of swordsmen in battle.

Because of this revamp, I have added an archive page and cleared the old talk page. As far as I'm concerned, the article is experiencing a rebirth, so the talk page needs a new beginning as well. Here it is! --xiliquiern^talk 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

European Section

This section has been pretty heavily rewritten, but I think a few more important links could be added. In the mean time, I'd like if someone would verify my edits. I don't want to have any mistakes, big or small, made in the chronology or subject of the article. Thanks! --xiliquiern^talk 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You might should consider breaking the Modern section of European swordmanship into Classical and Modern? Great work on the article!Ranp 22:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence! Breaking up the Modern section probably wouldn't be a bad idea. What would you think of subsections: Classical, Historical, Sport? That way the big three modern western ambitions each have their own little section? - xiliquiern^talk 22:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to change anything, but I would like to point out that the Roman system of fighting with the gladius was fairly balanced between the cut and the thrust. That whole bit about a thrusting sword is a bit of a myth... -Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmclark56 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Romans brought widescale usage of the sword to Europe; I think it was already there. Mycenaean grave site have tons of swords, as well as Homer writing of heros with swords. Egyptian reliefs show them, as well as their enemies using sword. The ancient Celts used swords, and of course Rome only started using the Gladius after they had been fighting in Spain, before which, they probably used another type of sword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Section

I'll see what I can do about this and the Other Asian section - I might be able to dig up a citable blurb or two about Southeast Asian swordsmanship. Just saying that I'm on board. Kensai Max 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is slower to draw a katana, from the blade down position. The art of Iaijutsu required a blade up draw, because it was fastest. There is a cultural aspect here. Blade down is war, if you came into another person's presence with your blades down, it was almost a threat of violence. However, if you came into their presence with the blades up...it was neutral...and easier for the iaijutsu draw. I will try to source this asap. Khallus Maximus (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Pacific/Philipino Section

I think this should be added in. I am particularly interested in the notion that the Spanish and Portugues traders influenced the native fighting arts, which use two sticks (sometimes equal length, sometimes one long and one short). The sticks can be traded for blades at any time. It is theorized that the European sword arts of rapier and dagger influenced this. Even if this were not the case, historically documented evidence of possible "cross-pollination of sword arts" is appropriate for the article.

Also, I think there needs to be some mention of De Re Militari. This Roman document offers a primary reference to the training of Roman soldiers, including the use of the "pell".

38.98.155.132 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please rewrite the "Filipino" section so that it sounds less like an advert? I would do it, but my edits are always reverted by a well-meaning but overzealous kabayan who thinks my edits is to "put down the Pinoy". So, di bale, kayo na lang. Gryphon Hall (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Filipino section is terrible. I almost deleted it completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.155.226 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

On its way to B class

Come on poeple - a few more in line references and some pictures and we have a B-class article. I made a small start.Peter Rehse 12:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Since the article is now a more general one rather than specific to European swordsmanship - the external links need to reflect this. I think they should be trimmed right down. I am sure they can be found in more specific articles and besides there were too many.Peter Rehse 13:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Korean?

I think the korean section is unappropiate, Korean swordsmanship is non-existant, Kumdo is a renamed version of the Japanese Kendo, which is an already washed down version of the also Japanese Kenjustu. Other Korean martial arts that are renamed versions of washed down versions of real Japanese martial arts include Hapkido[Aikido(Aikijujutsu)] and Yudo[Judo(Jujutsu)], a renamed version of an actual Japanese martial art could also be Taekwando(Karate). So, I request it to be removed or at least revised in order to include some truth. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.200.222.22 (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is a Korean martial art by the name of Kumdo, then however it arose or wherever it came from it deserves a mention. If the legacy behind the artform is important then so be it, then amend the entry in a neutral tone. Just removing the content is unhelpful, and will always be reverted. -- role^player 13:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Roleplayer, I agree with you - but I haven't restored the section for the simple reason that it was completely unreferenced. I support adding any sourceable, referenced content on Korean swordsmanship, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Made some changes. I agree that Kumdo is a derivative of Kendo, and so implied in a neutral manner. Though having studied both, I strongly disagree that Kumdo is just a renaming of Kendo, as the sets of techniques the arts have improved since the split are distinct; likewise for the techniques they preserve. I also disagree with the rest of 201.200.222.22's suggestions as they defy facts and common sense. 1) Hapkido and Aikido were founded respectively by Choi Yongsul and Ueshiba Morihei who both studied Daitoryu Aikijujutsu under Takeda Sokaku. Thus a) Hapkido is not a version of Aikido, and b) Hapkido is derived from Aikijujutsu, but it still remains to be justified how Hapkido is a washed down version unlike Aikido, with respect to Aikijujutsu. 2) Who claims that there is a distinct Korean equivalent of Judo? 3) Karate has Chinese roots and existed in Okinawa before its annexation by Japan. It wasn't introduced to Japan until the 1920s and was known to Korea in the 1930s at the latest. Thus it is questionable whether a) Karate is a real Japanese martial art, b) at the time of its founding, Taekwondo derived from something that could be called a real Japanese martial art, and c) all other non-Japanese arts Taekwondo lists as its roots are either false or insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.227.20 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

African Section

The North African portion of this section mentions a few swords, such as the ma, the kat, and an unnamed straight sword, all in addition to the khopesh. Internet sources for these swords are non-existant it seems, and there are no cited printed or academic sources either. Additionally, because of the incongruities of ancient egyptian transliteration, perhaps an inclusion of the original names referencing the Gardiner sign list could be included if somebody knew what they were. I'll keep digging on this, but I think somebody has some fairly specialized knowledge, or a book from a library somewhere that's not immediately obvious to me, and if that's the case this could take a while. —Jason-derp86 (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)