Should jedi train in combat?

Adder wrote: Mostly because your unable to carry them in public (AFAIK), but also obviously being useless against a projectile weapon or thrown object, or driven vehicle. Nothing will be an all inclusive defensive weapon either of course so that is not my point, but I guess it depends on the sword as well, some are heavy and their blade movement slower to accelerate which makes them vulnerable to someone getting inside its arc with a knife but can more easily held in defensive blocking etc, while lighter blades are faster but more easily blocked which makes them less useful in defence being lighter and designed more to cut then crush. I guess that is what the lightsaber was trying to represent, an ideal defensive weapon powerful enough to defeat any attack when wielded by the super fast reflexed Jedi, but discreet enough to wear as a fashion accessory.

A stick with the same dimensions as a sword does defend against thrown objects, as demonstrated by bat and ball sports. The benefit being the ability to modify the arc.

How is a lighter blade easier to block when the speed and momentum are so easily to take advantage of?

Swords, in sparring or self-defence, are very good at blocking. If discretion is a factor to limit what you have on hand as a non-practitioner vs a practitioner carrying a sword, then the question is actually not about usefulness but about availability. Defensive sword measures against someone intending to run you over in a vehicle comes down to how you want to use a sword because the design is less important as the intent and means that define effectiveness and efficiency.

Swords are known to cut bullets, and preventing actions from being taken. Even a large inequality of force to disadvantage the sword (e.g. nuclear bomb) has the situation reversed when the sword prevents, disables, or controls the action needed. To dismiss the usefulness of a sword without appropriate consideration just lost a lot of truth to assert such an opinion.

The relevance to should a Jedi train in combat is combat training is physical practice of mental and character development, which concludes affirmative support for the question. If the decision not to train in combat is upheld, one less branch of experiences is simply withheld. Essentially the original posts questions the value of a Jedi that neglected a branch of experiences, and is similar to should a Jedi practice the study of the force? Ultimately the tool is less important than the teacher.

I'm not saying anyone shouldn't, you should do what you feel is right, and I'm not authority either. It's just in all my travels I've never come across a sword which was not either in a dojo, a shop, or a decoration. And so given my experiences it seems unlikely to be confronted with one, and even more unlikely that I'll also have a sword or that someone else there would for me to use. If I could upload skills into my brain I would include swords for sure, but should it be a priority given restraints on time and other resources.... is where my opinion fits into the thread.

So given the lack of contemporary practical scenarios for real threats, I'm reverting to the little I know about history for comparisons. In regards to blocking, a heavy sword needs heavy armor while a light sword does not the armor to be as heavy, because its mass is so much lower it is more designed to slash and cut, then cut and crush like a heavy blade. Yes lighter blades being able to acclerate better do make them hard to position for a block, but that is also a function of detection and capacity to respond, so my use of the term block was rather the relationship between hitting object and hit object.

I think a staff or shorter stick style of weapon would give all the benefits of sword training (except dueling against swords probably) with much higher practical utility plus, without the swords functional restrictions necessitating limitations on use such as leading with striking edges and limitations on hand placement, I find it better to exercise the mental domain of translating kinematic visualization into exercising kinaesthesia.

But is any of this really 'combat' by today's standards!? Tactical shooting and movement, survival and associated systems knowledge is probably a better use of the term combat... and what about pilotage, there are 'combat vehicles' where proper employment could be of relevance if we are talking about modern usage of the word combat. They would be the modern equivalent of martial arts I guess. In the fiction they could certainly integrate with the military but I don't think that is realistic either. It's always going to be a personal choice where one casts their net to develop their character.

Adder wrote: It's just in all my travels I've never come across a sword which was not either in a dojo, a shop, or a decoration. And so given my experiences it seems unlikely to be confronted with one, and even more unlikely that I'll also have a sword or that someone else there would for me to use.

Practitioners do carry training gear on the way and from places where swords are practiced. And anything resembling a stick nearby can be substituted as a sword because the sword is a versatile and convenient tool.

Adder wrote: In regards to blocking, a heavy sword needs heavy armor while a light sword does not the armor to be as heavy, because its mass is so much lower it is more designed to slash and cut, then cut and crush like a heavy blade. Yes lighter blades being able to acclerate better do make them hard to position for a block, but that is also a function of detection and capacity to respond, so my use of the term block was rather the relationship between hitting object and hit object.

Curiosity asks why heavy armour is needed to block with heavy swords because I experienced less weight from armour was easier to block. Same principle as a 100kg vs a 70kg person doing chinups.

Adder wrote: I think a staff or shorter stick style of weapon would give all the benefits of sword training (except dueling against swords probably) with much higher practical utility plus, without the swords functional restrictions necessitating limitations on use such as leading with striking edges and limitations on hand placement, I find it better to exercise the mental domain of translating kinematic visualization into exercising kinaesthesia.

Hand placement on swords is accessible because you palm the flat of the blade. Even easier with sabres and actually exploited for the offensive.

Adder wrote: But is any of this really 'combat' by today's standards!? Tactical shooting and movement, survival and associated systems knowledge is probably a better use of the term combat... and what about pilotage, there are 'combat vehicles' where proper employment could be of relevance if we are talking about modern usage of the word combat. They would be the modern equivalent of martial arts I guess. In the fiction they could certainly integrate with the military but I don't think that is realistic either.

Modern combat still needs a stick-structured weapon indicative of a sword equivalent, although knife is better suited. A club-like stick would be a good choice, otherwise good armour would be a necessity. Firearms and other projectile warfare depend on ammo, vehicles depend on fuel, which are excellent weak points. The versatility of the sword principle allows a practitioner to consider and capitalise on these weaknesses.

Adder wrote: It's always going to be a personal choice where one casts their net to develop their character.

Agreed, and the actions resulting from that choice define the merit of the status.

Entropist wrote:

Adder wrote: It's just in all my travels I've never come across a sword which was not either in a dojo, a shop, or a decoration. And so given my experiences it seems unlikely to be confronted with one, and even more unlikely that I'll also have a sword or that someone else there would for me to use.

Practitioners do carry training gear on the way and from places where swords are practiced. And anything resembling a stick nearby can be substituted as a sword because the sword is a versatile and convenient tool.

Why not!! As far as I know swords are not prohibited in QLD, though I did recently hear about someone getting shot by Police for coming at them with a samurai sword. From the little I know you just need a good reason to have it in public
:S
So I guess the only risk is if its taken off you by thugs.... then I guess the options diminish. Great if you work at the dojo and can carry it everyday to and from work!!! But as mentioned previously, its seems disproportionate for an aggressor with anything less then a sword (from a legal standpoint if claiming self defense), and ineffective against anything longer ranged like a gun, IMO.

Adder wrote: ! But as mentioned previously, its seems disproportionate for an aggressor with anything less then a sword (from a legal standpoint if claiming self defense), and ineffective against anything longer ranged like a gun, IMO.

I am curious as to what you mean by anything less then a sword. Because a bat, knife, or really most other weapons can kill just as readily so deadly force is met with deadly force and in the US at least is totally legal. Not your fault your attacker brought a hammer to a sword fight. :laugh:

I know I'm late to the game here. I wanted to say that there is danger in using "should" when it comes to Jedi. Then you get pages and pages of arguments, and sometimes it leads to unnecessary divisions.

Personally? I am trained in firearm usage. I currently don't own a gun, but I plan to soon get my certification for concealed carry and keep one on my person when appropriate. I am also trained in detainment and escape techniques (meaning, get away, if not possible, focus on removing threat). I wouldn't ever expect a Jedi to go beyond that.

I would also really not expect much of anything from a Jedi. Since we have, collectively, decided that Jedi is really a personal spiritual path (and not a duty or job), then no... Jedi (as a rule) should not have any requirements about training in combat.

MadHatter wrote:

Adder wrote: ! But as mentioned previously, its seems disproportionate for an aggressor with anything less then a sword (from a legal standpoint if claiming self defense), and ineffective against anything longer ranged like a gun, IMO.

I am curious as to what you mean by anything less then a sword. Because a bat, knife, or really most other weapons can kill just as readily so deadly force is met with deadly force and in the US at least is totally legal. Not your fault your attacker brought a hammer to a sword fight. :laugh:

Less likely to inflict serious injury - more capable of damage more easily then anything 'less' then it, but not 'more' then it and as you can imagine there would be other variables at play then the weapons particular design, but the context of my reply was not combat capability so much but potential culpability, and realistic possibility of having two people with swords in a street fight. Such that my comment is not about intent, a cup of water can probably drown someone.

Like shooting at someone is more likely to cause serious damage if you hit then a thrown knife if you hit. The knife still might kill the person, but most of the time it will probably bounce off.

Consider accidentally eviscerating someone because they fell on the sword held at the ready position, versus what is required by a bat to kill, being deliberate swings to the skull I guess. Or more likely a full force swing hitting an arm; a bat will break the bone, and a real sword might cut the arm off!!

I think the measure will be if the actions were proportional in defence, and that includes both selection of weapon and manner of use. Obviously so many variables, like it might be the only choice etc, but I'm trying to avoid the huge amount of variables that might happen in different circumstances as much as possible.

Adder wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Adder wrote: ! But as mentioned previously, its seems disproportionate for an aggressor with anything less then a sword (from a legal standpoint if claiming self defense), and ineffective against anything longer ranged like a gun, IMO.

I am curious as to what you mean by anything less then a sword. Because a bat, knife, or really most other weapons can kill just as readily so deadly force is met with deadly force and in the US at least is totally legal. Not your fault your attacker brought a hammer to a sword fight. :laugh:

Less likely to inflict serious injury - more capable of damage more easily then anything 'less' then it, but not 'more' then it and as you can imagine there would be other variables at play then the weapons particular design, but the context of my reply was not combat capability so much but potential culpability, and realistic possibility of having two people with swords in a street fight. Such that my comment is not about intent, a cup of water can probably drown someone.

Like shooting at someone is more likely to cause serious damage if you hit then a thrown knife if you hit. The knife still might kill the person, but most of the time it will probably bounce off.

Consider accidentally eviscerating someone because they fell on the sword held at the ready position, versus what is required by a bat to kill, being deliberate swings to the skull I guess. Or more likely a full force swing hitting an arm; a bat will break the bone, and a real sword might cut the arm off!!

I think the measure will be if the actions were proportional in defence, and that includes both selection of weapon and manner of use. Obviously so many variables, like it might be the only choice etc, but I'm trying to avoid the huge amount of variables that might happen in different circumstances as much as possible.

Now I do not know about any laws outside the US but if we are speaking US law if someone had a deadly weapon which is anything from a bat to an rpg and shows intent to use it and has the ability to use it then you can respond with whatever level of deadly force you need to end the threat. Now if you find that moral or not is really up to your own outlook but under the law its totally legal. Just wanted to give some information. One should not have to nor would it be wise to guess if someone coming at you with a bat or screw driver is going to simply hurt or is trying to kill. At the moment a person attacks you with a deadly weapon you in my opinion have every right to respond with whatever level of force and with whatever tool is at hand to end the threat. The goal should be ending the threat and if the person is badly hurt or worse they brought that on their own head.
I might sound harsh but I want innocent people to not only make it home whole but to not have to worry about losing their freedom or property for simply defending their life with the wrong item.

MadHatter wrote: Now I do not know about any laws outside the US but if we are speaking US law if someone had a deadly weapon which is anything from a bat to an rpg and shows intent to use it and has the ability to use it then you can respond with whatever level of deadly force you need to end the threat. Now if you find that moral or not is really up to your own outlook but under the law its totally legal. Just wanted to give some information. One should not have to nor would it be wise to guess if someone coming at you with a bat or screw driver is going to simply hurt or is trying to kill. At the moment a person attacks you with a deadly weapon you in my opinion have every right to respond with whatever level of force and with whatever tool is at hand to end the threat. The goal should be ending the threat and if the person is badly hurt or worse they brought that on their own head.
I might sound harsh but I want innocent people to not only make it home whole but to not have to worry about losing their freedom or property for simply defending their life with the wrong item.

Nah, doesn't sound harsh, but I think it helps to remember sometimes you might need to explain and justify your actions, and a sword seems more premeditated then a bat IMO, if there are no witnesses. Unless carrying swords is common. Entropist lives in the same town as me so I was reflecting on local laws and culture.

Adder wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Now I do not know about any laws outside the US but if we are speaking US law if someone had a deadly weapon which is anything from a bat to an rpg and shows intent to use it and has the ability to use it then you can respond with whatever level of deadly force you need to end the threat. Now if you find that moral or not is really up to your own outlook but under the law its totally legal. Just wanted to give some information. One should not have to nor would it be wise to guess if someone coming at you with a bat or screw driver is going to simply hurt or is trying to kill. At the moment a person attacks you with a deadly weapon you in my opinion have every right to respond with whatever level of force and with whatever tool is at hand to end the threat. The goal should be ending the threat and if the person is badly hurt or worse they brought that on their own head.
I might sound harsh but I want innocent people to not only make it home whole but to not have to worry about losing their freedom or property for simply defending their life with the wrong item.

Nah, doesn't sound harsh, but I think it helps to remember sometimes you might need to explain and justify your actions, and a sword seems more premeditated then a bat IMO, if there are no witnesses. Unless carrying swords is common. Entropist lives in the same town as me so I was reflecting on local laws and culture.

Oh that is spot on and a good thing to keep in mind. But I am also all for open carry of battle axes because I guarantee people would be a lot more polite if people carried swords commonly and duels were legal.