Tameshigiri/Cutting Ability of Swords in General

[Logan Weed]

In a discussion on another message board we came upon the discussion of historical use of tameshigiri and it was said that such accounts were obviously fictional as such a thing as to "cut three corpses tied together" would be utterly impossible for any sword.

We were also assured that were this claim to ever be brought up in an organization such as ARMA it would be quickly dismissed as absurd.

Given this, I thought to myself "why not actually ask the people over at ARMA what they think of this?"

In this specific case we're dealing with three to four corpses tied securely together and either stacked one on top of the other or hung side by side in a row. The cut would be through the front of the abdomen under the rib cage and out through the lower back and spine in either a straight downward or horizontal motion. The corpses to be tested are of average build for a 17th century adult japanese male who's probably a bit emaciated.

So what think you? Is this possible with any known sword under these conditions? Is it possible with Tachi?

[Bnonn Tennant]

Well, I've never done any test cutting on meat, but I've seen a fair number of videos of such test cutting, and it seems to take very little effort to cut through soft tissue. Abdomens are basically that, with the only significant resistance being provided by the spine. It seems likely to me that parting vertebrae isn't going to be a major hurdle for a sword, though.
<p>
Since your average person doesn't have all <em>that</em> much to him around the middle, it would not surprise me if a solid, well-executed strike with a longsword could cleanly sever three or maybe even four corpses at the abdomen. To be honest, it seems rather unwise to claim that such a feat is "utterly impossible" and "absurd".
<p>
I wonder if anyone who has actually done significant test cutting on meat could comment, though.

[Derek Gulas]

Hi Logan,

While I admit that I haven't done any test cutting yet myself (unfortunately), I have seen a video of another ARMA member cutting a deer corpse in half with a longsword, with seemingly little difficulty, if any. Now then, I would imagine that a person, especially an emaciated one, wouldn't present as much of a challenge as a deer. So I would have to say, I would not be surprised to see a strong man with good technique cut through three or four people bound together tightly. But under combat conditions I'd have to say that a strong man could probably only cut through one peasant at a time with good technique <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Logan Weed]

I do suppose you'd have a difficult time finding three apponents bound together in a straight line in combat conditions as well <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Is this deer cutting video still available? I'd love to see it.

And thank you very much your feedback, it's much appreciated.

[Allen Johnson]

That was good ol' Casper and I believe the video is available in the members section. Also take into consideration that the deer was gutted- still though, nothing to sneeze at. Beware of sensational comments that detract from the point of what the weapon is supposed to do-- be used in a FIGHT. Who cares if it can cut through a bunch of soft objects? What is it going to do when it comes in contact with another sword or a piece of hard armor? How does it handle under stress? How many hard strikes can it take before the fittings start rattling and coming loose? These are the things that really matter. Who cares if a guy can smash his forehead through 6 pine boards- can he win in a fight?

[John_Clements]

The 16th &amp; 17th century accounts I have of Europeans in Japan record single corpses being cut at, mostly on their limbs. But either way, soft tissue or limbs would not be a great challenge I think for any dedicated cutting sword. That's what they were designed to do after all, and they did it well. I've personaly never been that surprised when swords I've cut raw meat with made ferocious injuries.

JC

[Rod-Thornton]

Typically, to end a fight quickly, how deep of a wound to the abdomen is necessary? Surely historical accounts exist indicating that.

Of course, a limb lost (arm/leg, hand) as well as a scalp-removal or any head/face shot would be a game-stopper, but I wonder what it takes to "switch-off" an assailant with a body wound. Have there been any accounts of just how much pressing into the body was required say, with a good mittelhau to the kidney area to switch a guy off mid-stroke?

[Aaron Pynenberg]

well...if I could add that to "switch off" a committed attacker, is not as easy as you might think. As a SWAT Officer, I am responsible for inital entry as a shield entryman, that means I will usually be on the ballistic shield, looking through a small plexi-glass window, and have my pistol free to enage threats.

I am the first man through the doorway and my sole job is to engage the first threat to the team. I train for CNS incapacitation- (central nervous system)-IE shots to the brain basket. Through, scientific study Law Enforcement has been able to consistantly show that there are too many variables in any other target package. We have been able to beat repeated, claims that this type of training is excessive use of force through these scientific studies, that indeed the CNS target package is the only means by which we can instantally stop a suspects actions, irregardless of the suspects physical skills, size, demeanor, willingness to complete task, use of drugs or performance enahancing substances etc.... logically though if an assailant is using a sword or other edged weapon, (in a historical setting) and the other guy hacks of the arm wielding the weapon, I agree that this would suffice to stop that particular attack. furthermore would probably render the attacker a non-threat.

Law Enforcement and Military studies though, have consistentally shown that aggressors abilities to respond to mortal wounds are highly subjective-that is thier ability to continue with a dedicated attack of thier own, after recieving the mortal wound are highly varied---the exception is a CNS target package. This type of response always renders an attacker incapacitated without exception.

[s_taillebois]

Well lots of somewhat appalling variables here-one would be the state of decomposition of the corpses, gas protrusion, epidermis decay and such...yuck.
And the type of sword, a Falchion would obviously have more facility within the hypothetical situation than a bastard sword.
And incapacitation, as M. Pynenberg notes, that is very subjective, and very variable contingent on a thousand conditions. The human body (and mind) can be very tough, and is quite capable of taking some appalling damage and still being functional for a short period of time. Also have to remember that medieval weapons &amp; warfare would produce a much higher amount of 'lingering' mortally wounded than modern weapons. Partially as a result of medical concerns, but also a matter of weapons and tactics. Quite literally, 'cutting your opponent in half' needn't have been required in a battlefield setting. Or especially likely given armour, chaos and adreline. The nature of melees, tended to be that once an opponent was down, the next was the problem.
Many of the wounds from places like Towton, tended to be leg wounds (debilitating) or head wounds (lethal).
Plus have to remember given the social order of the time, one of the things the fighters really feared, was to be left on the field. If they were, all they got if lucky...was a blanket and some wine or water, and last rites...if unlucky they were left alone to face the cold, heat, ravens, dogs and wolves (of both canine and human kind).
So, the 'hacking in half' situation...might have been preferable for some....

[Matt_Bruskotter]

So what Aaron is saying is that the only sure way to end a fight quickly is to sever the CNS? In other words a blow to the head or neck with a sword gains priority over a arm or leg or abdomen strike? I know the answer is obvious but I'm curious if most of ARMA agrees. Always target the head when striking? Of course of other oppurtunities arise but in general.

[JeanryChandler]

Severing, or severely lacerating the weapon arm (or hand) would be a good start to rendering an opponent relatively harmless, IMO. Breaking legs is another good ploy. CNS is always a good target but it's not the only target. I don't know of y'all have seen Cold Steel's test cutting DVD but it's clear that a sharp sword can dismember somebody but quick.

Also, I don't know how much it entered the training, but guys experienced on the battlefield would probably very quickly learn about anatomy and which areas killed quickly and / or stopped people in their tracks, as well as where to cut to sever limbs and such.

It's a big difference from hitting people with bean bags guns and pr-24's...

We know they did sever limbs in battle from skeletal remains. (IIRC there was one body at Wisby which had both legs severed from one cut.)

I learned a bit about the placement of cuts during the post-katrina mess. We were stuck in the country literally trapped by fallen trees. I spent a lot of time clearing brush, and along with the chainsaw, I got pretty good with my machete. I learned that strength was almost irrelevant in cutting, placement and edge alignment was everyting. Cut the limb at the fork (joint) and it comes apart very easily, you can hack very hard at the same limb in the wrong place and merely nick it over and over. Constantly sharpening the tool was another important aspect.

Have you ever seen a slaughter house? Think how quickly an experienced slaughter house worker could take somebody apart with a weapon like a halberd or a kern axe. Or a sharp sword or dagger for that matter.

Also, as for a falchion being better... maybe, but last time we did test cutting with about 20 albion and arms and armor weapons, the bastard sword types cut by far the best, which I found both surprising and very interesting.

Jeanry

[Rod-Thornton]

Yeah, see, Aaron, that's the sort of ponderance I had. By CNS incapacitation, I am wondering about spinal chord/neck.

Obviously severance prevents motor skills for attack, but in other instances, you cite brainpan targeting. Certainly the historical literature vindicates your sort of claim with a great number of techniques showing skull/head attacks (Cappo Ferro coming to mind as the most vivid plates).

But chest poking with a "broad" sword (not a "broadsword") comes to the front of the question.

It seems blades (like the Cinqueda (spelling?) and the wide stabbing blades of the Roman Gladius) are meant to be so wide that they cause an INCREASED LIKELIHOOD to sever nerves and some major connections (as well as massive trauma to organs and muscle groups) in an attempt to do such a switch off.

I would think adrenaline surges in a real fight would have one going at least a little while longer after a hit until blood pressure drops kick in....certainly enough to fight back for a bit... But, hey, that's likely why Mast Leichnt...focused on multiple attacks to the opponent...in recognition of this very phenomena. Scoring a below the neck "switch off" however is something different without the hole-poking through to a CNS tissue, I would think.

(Comes to mind the times I've head-shot deer (does) and dressed 'em where they lay, versus heart/lung shot 'em and dressed 'em 300 yds down into a hollow cuz they could still run like crazy...and had to drag 'em out).

A quick review of Ringeck tho' , now that I'm looking for it, seems to display alot of emphasis on thrusting attacks from the winding/binding.....possibly to find the CNS sweetspot in leui of body cutting?

Going back to the original thread question, it seems ability to penetrate with the point seems to be slightly more relevant than ability to penetrate with the edge....???

[JeanryChandler]

It seems blades (like the Cinqueda (spelling?) and the wide stabbing blades of the Roman Gladius) are meant to be so wide that they cause an INCREASED LIKELIHOOD to sever nerves and some major connections (as well as massive trauma to organs and muscle groups) in an attempt to do such a switch off.

Yeah, thats no accident either since the Romans adopted their sword from the Celtiberians. I think the finest example of this is the Pugio, the roman dagger, which is powerfully reminiscent of a hand shovel. It is so wide it is likely to split organs and muscle tissue like soft fruit and part arteries like rubber bands.

There seems to be a tradeoff of penetration (narrow blades) vs. damage (wide blades). The romans taught their soldeirs to thrust with their weapon in the horizontal, so as to better penetrate the rib cage. Since most of their opponents were lightly armored, penetration was of less importance than it was in Medieval or Renaissacne Europe, so thats pretty much all they had to worry about.

I would think adrenaline surges in a real fight would have one going at least a little while longer after a hit until blood pressure drops kick in....

Some kinds of injuries will only cause blood loss etc. while some others will always incapacitate. A compound fracture of a leg will stop somone from walking, regardless of their adrenaline level. If you hack through all the muscles in somoenes arm, they cannot use that arm any more. If you cut halfway through somebdies neck or body, they are going to drop.

Going back to the original thread question, it seems ability to penetrate with the point seems to be slightly more relevant than ability to penetrate with the edge....???

I think you should be very careful with this. Particularly with a narrow thrusting weapon, it's quite hard to find that sweet spot. And as I've demonstrated in sparring with a lot of rapier and olympic fencing / epee fighters, my broadsword can end the fight just as quickly as their rapier by severing their weapon hand, with followup attacks at my leisure...

Jr

[s_taillebois]

M. Chandler and Company,
About the relative merits of falchions and bastard swords in cutting, no doubt some variables there. Have done some test cutting with my favorite bastard nee' 1 1/2, to do deep (literally severing) cuts usually it needs to be somewhat closer to the strong of the blade. So mayhaps, the degree of of the triangular taper, is a salient factor. That said, even with the tip of a bastard sword, it can make some fearsome cuts. And really, as stated before, with the nature of these weapons, literally hacking someone in half, wouldn't be necessary to kill or incapacitate-and might have been wasted motion.
The Roman's their weapon combination of the various pugios/short swords and the pilum pretty well covered the parameters of damaging cuts and penetration.
And mayhaps that's the reason the bastard swords became so popular...good thrusting and cutting abilities within the same weapon. Without the very specific limitations implied with either say, estocs or falchions.
And lastly (thank whatever patron saint dealing with these conversations), we live in a society which fortunately usually doesn't deal with the trauma effects a sword can do to a body. For example, M Chandler is quite right about strikes to the hands or legs being dehabilitating/fight ending. But given the medical standards of our time vs theirs, these equivalent wounds which would might be survivable today, would have, for many in the past,might have been agonizingly, and lingeringly lethal.
So perchance, as a culture, we might tend to overemphasize the level of lethality needed in a sword.

[William Savage]

It seems blades (like the Cinqueda (spelling?) and the wide stabbing blades of the Roman Gladius) are meant to be so wide that they cause an INCREASED LIKELIHOOD to sever nerves and some major connections (as well as massive trauma to organs and muscle groups) in an attempt to do such a switch off.



Yeah, thats no accident either

I kinda dissagree here. I think there are three main reasons for the shape of the gladious.
1st- orriginating from bronze swords they would have had to be stout so as not to deform.
2nd- a fat blade adds weght needed for cleaving cuts that the short length of the blade detracts from.
3rd- the practical matter of space and cumbrance, the romans fought in close formations and a short weapon that can still hit hard would be usefull for this especially since roman soldiers were used for intimate fighting in urban policing actions.

You also mention that a blow to the hand works almost as good as one to the CNS. I completly dissagree. Sure swords do plenty damage, but in a fight YOU JUST DONT KNOW what effect your "damage" will have until its over. It doesnt matter if you cleave off half the muscles on a guys sword arm if he's in survival mode he'll kill you with the minimal amount of musles needed to do so.
Even a man whos a gorey mess can still be a threat.

I also dissagree with your sweetspot theory I think a thin strait line through the body has an awsome chance at giving a fatal wound although not as quick as CNS destruction.

Respectfully William Savage