Tameshigiri/Cutting Ability of Swords in General

[JeanryChandler]

I kinda dissagree here. I think there are three main reasons for the shape of the gladious.

The Romans had exposure to every kind of sword and hand weapon currently in use in the world in their time, (outside of the Pacific islands and say, Central America, and the hand weapons used in those zones had their equivalent in Europe and Africa) They chose the Gladius because of it's lethality. Certainly a secondary cutting ability was valued, and taken advantage of, but lethality in the thrust is key.

Also, keep in mind I was primarily referring to the Pugio, the Roman dagger, which was also broad and pointy for thrusting and causing catastrophic damage..

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 don't know how much sparring or test cutting you have ever done, but a sword cut can sever a hand without being a remarkable cut. A successful amputation would be quite apparent. A cut sufficient to cause somebody to drop their weapon would be even less difficult, I have done it pretty frequently on accident with padded weapons against people wearing protective gloves..

As far as stopping somebody in an adrenaline rush frenzy, there are physical limitatons that no amount of adrenaline can compensate for. I have seen people in frothing, foaming rages completely incapacitated by a broken ankle, collar bone or wrist.

On the other hand I have been pepper sprayed pretty thourougholy without much effect. I have seen people beaten in the head with flashlights, bats, pool cues, and bottles with no apparent effect.

Dealing with someone with less than lethal or relatively soft blunt trauma weapons, (plastic, rubber, wooden and / or aluminum blunt objects etc.) is a completely different ball of wax than dealing with people with sharp and hard-edged weapons designed to murder and dismember. It's fairly shocking reality many might not like to really consider, but thats the reality. More on this in my other post...

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.

You should review the FBI statistics on ballistic injuries, you might change your mind.

Jeanry

[JeanryChandler]

True enough Mr Tallebois, and as usual your points are salient and well thought through. For a fact I think it's somewhat of a mystery why the sharply tapering swords seem to cut so well, but I'm not the only one to notice this. More study needs to be done I think, the calculus of blade geometry is not as simple as we may have originally thought.

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.

Yeah, thats true, the eminently pragmatic Romans had the whole range covered. Injure with the initial volley of pila, murder with gladius and pugio. People tend to focus so much on the shield disabling (and self-destructive) properties of the pilum that they forget what it really is first and foremost: an armor piercing projectile not altogether unlike the discarding- Sabot ammunition used in tanks since World War II.

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. (snip) So perchance, as a culture, we might tend to overemphasize the level of lethality needed in a sword.

Well, IMO we live in a society which has a delusional concept of physical violence, at once glorified 10,000 times a day in TV shows, video games and movies, but in the TV in particular, almost never realisitcally portrayed, always in a cartoon manner. The kinds of injuries caused by a shotgun, for example, or a heavy machine gun, or a hand grenade, RPG, IED, or mortar round are almost never truthfully portrayed in any media I've seen, except one.

I remember when I was going through Medic school in the Army at Ft. Sam Houston. Toward the end of our training course they wanted us to be somewhat prepared for what we might have to see as medics, and showed us some films you might call snuff films, footage from Viet nam, WW II and Korea, from wars around the Third World... dismemberment was the least of it. The whole class of pretty rough around the edges enlisted soldiers was incapable of keeping their eyes on the screen, including me. I get nauseous just thinking about it. Thats why I never watch those videos that go around the internet of hostage decapitations and such. I don't want to see that stuff.

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.

Ironically, it seems that in those days they could treat cuts generally much better than puncture wounds, which tended to get fatal infections from even minor injuries. This persisted until the 19th century.

Jeanry

[William Savage]

Your right M. Chandler i don't know my FBI ballistics files, But i stand by my other statements.

lets just agree to disagree on the gladious.

As far as the extent of my test cutting assassinated some frozen pumpkins in my back yard stuck on a makeshift pell. And i know people here will agree with me of the difference between a true cut and a slightly off-angle cut. I dont think your theoretical "unremarkable" cut to the hand is a sure fire way to imoblize a threat.

And padded swords in padded hands(hockey gloves) just doesnt cut it(pun not intended but not avoided)
I think maybe these cases of disarming your opponent had nothing to do with the effectiveness of a real sword but were the result of a poor grip on an auquard sword.

Sorry for not sounding as humble as i actually am.

[JeanryChandler]

I'm sure you are right. Certainly cutting properly isn't easy for those of us who have only done it a handful of times, but i guess I'm assuming a certain level of expertise for folks who are professionals.

As for cutting the hand, thats how I would do it with a sword.

Jr

[Brian Hunt]

I am going to chime in here briefly. Bill McConnell in his paper " The Cut and Thrust of Blade Combat" said

"human beings are by design very durable with many redundant systems that can prove surprisingly resilient . . . To kill or disable an opponent with an edged weapon you have a choince between damaging the mechanicals or the hydraulics.

To damage the mechanicals you need to cut nerves, ligaments, muscles, and tendons; break bones and joints . . . The hydraulics are damaged by making holes in the largest blood vessels or a large number of smaller ones . . . Where the cut is better for mechanical damage, the thrust is indeed better for upsetting the hydrodynamics of the opponent."

I found this quote inside the book by Dwight C. McLemore, "Bowie and big-knife fighting system." I felt it was very appropriate to the discussion at hand.

laters.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Rod-Thornton]

Mr. Savage:

Going back to my original post, we're looking at the instantaneous fight-stopper/the "switch." I think that CNS sweetspot is more than a theory...and as others who work in that field (Aaron) have cited, it's taught as the practical approach. Anyhows, you indicated that a hole-poking is far more lethal....maybe...ultimately....but I am wondering about ending another guy's ability to counter-cut...not die simultaneously with him. Despite conjecture, or opinions here, the historical records cite a large number of contestants who ultimately had mutual kills in rapier fencing and/or duels for lack of a better "switch" than CNS severance. Simple fact. hydraulic shutdown (hole-poking internal organs) works, sure, but does so more slowly, as accounts tell us.

Now, others cited the mechanical switch (i.e., severance of muscle groups, etc.) ...yeah, I see that. If you cannot hold the sword, or hold your own body weight up (as in a dismemberment/amputation, either partial or complete) then how can you move and fight? (Think Holy Grail here "...What'll ya' do? Bleed on Me?) - cuz you are going to keep moving and voiding and if the opponent cannot follow, he's out of the fight.
-So to some extent, PART of my original question regarding a switch is answered with mechanical separation of sword limbs or supporting limbs (legs)- but for body attacks, I still wonder if it takes a poke to the spine to shut off all POSSIBLE attacks, no matter what adrenaline surges. I.e., is a hack to the side of the ribs, despite slicing into kidneys, viscera, etc., going to stop a guy who's already in motion for a swing himself? Now I can clearly see that connecting with the top of his/her brainpan surely would make that coming cut drop like a lead ballon.

[s_taillebois]

M. Chandler, quite true about the puncture wounds being very difficult for the original people of the sword era to handle.
As for cuts, some weird social elements got involved there...
Prior to the 'retaking' of Toledo and the establishment of outremer, European battlefield medicine was tolerable at best. After contact with the Moslims (and the influences they got from the classical world, Persia, India and China) european medical abilities got much better. It reached a point where people like Roger of Sicily kept Moslim medical people around (and he actually had Imam's floating around his entourage). Drove the newcomer European's beserk, but better that than having an amputation happy Frankish doctor around.
As for cultural perceptions of violence, quite true, we as a culture do tend to have a disassociation with it's actual effects. Maybe a good thing, but soldiers, and people living in the less stable parts of this country, will tend to be vexed with the realities.
In that regard, I'd wonder if the social attitudes about violence, for those groups, might be much closer to that of the people of the era which this forum studies. And what effect it may have had on them...even the 'better' ones, ie the Hospitalers, Richard 1st, El Cid, or later Loyola, were capable of a violence which is alien to many today.
Bastard swords, yes, the tips on those can do some very extensive cuts. Maybe not deep as would seem to be the case with a falchion (or something like a katana), but enough to be seriously dehabilitating.

[William Savage]

Eehh... I appologize for not making my self clearer originally.

I think that CNS sweetspot is more than a theory...and as others who work in that field (Aaron) have cited, it's taught as the practical approach

I did not mean to disagree with the theory that impailing a body in a critical location is super traumatic. The theory i dissagreed with was that -a lethal angle of impailment was hard to acheive, relative to the lethality of cuts- stated by Mr. Chandler.

All id really like to say is that i'd preffer to cut someone in the head or impail them than to attack their limbs.

And Mr. Chander i dont beleive i said anything to provoke your snide remarks.

[JeanryChandler]

I apologize if it seemed like I was making some snide remarks, it certainly wasn't intended that way. Im not sure what you are referring to.

While i'm at it, for what it's worth, I also didn't mean to imply that severing a hand is easy, only that in my opinion, it is the best option under the circumstances described. (And perhaps easier for some of our forefathers to accomplish than it may be for us).

But I don't pretend to settle the ancient 'cut vs thrust' argument, I was just expressing an opinion within the context of the earlier discussion.

Personally, I do think you should train to be able to defend yourself from 'posthumous' attacks, i.e. well after you may have delivered what is considered in sparring to be a theoreticaly mortal or maiming blow. If you aren't ready for an impact 1/2 second after you deilvered a "killing blow" then you aren't really training effectively IMO. The best policy is deliver your crippling or mortal wound, then the coup de grace. If the latter looks to be too dangerous, (i.e. the opponent is still actively trying to kill you) back out quickly in a defensive guard and be ready to displace attacks and deliver more lethal counters as necessary.

Jr

[s_taillebois]

M. Chandler and co,
Well, that's where the balance between offensive and defensive gets into the equation. Often whether it's a cutting strike or a thrust, moving back into an appropriate guard would seem useful. If for no other reason than to give a (very)brief moment to assess your opponents condition or response-or in some cases, as with those nudging coot like myself...to catch breath. In the past, with civilian duels involving rapiers, it seemed to have been distressingly common for the active agent to skewer the defensive agent, assume it honor was served and it was all over...and then get stabbed by the supposedly beaten opponent. Longswords and bastards, methinks much less likely, due to the various body parts presumably littering the ground.

[philippewillaume]

Hello
Hum germans master of the lichtanauer tradition seems to value cut thrust and slice.

When unarmored
You cut at the head shoulder and hands
You trust at the body the face
A you schnit at the hands and the neck

In the grand scheme of things we could say that there is a not that much difference between bullet, knife and sword thrust (unlees we are talking about dumb dum bullets)
With bullet, the hydrostatic shock is really nothing more than a big bruising so like arrow, or not too sharp sword and knife the actual wound channel will be relatively narrow in most of the case.
Hence, you need to hit something vital. And immediately incapacitating and the CNS is really the best solution.
With a big knife or a sharp word thrust behave at tad differently due to the retraction of the sharp blade so wound tend but a tad bigger and the broader the blade the more bigger the bleeding but I would say the same theory does apply. So obviously you will obtain incapacity by loss blood quicker.
A thrust or a bullet will not remove a limb How ever a cut behave radically differently. A cut is doing much more damage to a bigger area than a thrust. So the incapacitating factor of a cut is potentially thrust. That does not change the fat that an immediately incapacitating wound is still the CSN. Again incapacity by blood loss is likely to be quicker due to the damage on the bigger area.

The thing is when you sword fighting immediate incapacity does not matter as mush as in gun against gun or gun against hand held weapons.
You see you can return fire or access a ranged weapon with a broken leg or a broken shoulder, you capacity to be combat effective, will depend mainly of you ability top wistand pain as the wound has the would has small incapacitating factor (Hence amphetamines, or other dugs with a similar effect and theirs usage in the military or by street gangs).
So, when you are armed with a gun, the only solutions you have to prevent your opponent to return fire or to close is a direct incapacitating shot.

It is just not the case in fighting with a sword/knife with cutting and trusting abilities (you could extend that to wrestling)
The opponent closing or retuning fire or accessing a weapon is not so much of a problem
Because we are already close and we have tool than can prevent him to come close, and you can control his abilitie to retaliate.

The head shoulder neck area is an ideal target for cut
You have a possible a direct show stopper, and a massive haemorrhaging in progress (neck or shoulder) or significant degradation of the opponent fighting abilities.

[John_Clements]

I generally agree.
My next book in late 2006 is specifically about the violence of sword injuries and deaths in historical combat. I inlcude in one section alone about 140 pages of accounts describing wounds. There is material in it I am sure will require much re-evaluation of what we assume and accept about historical fencing.
Gotta run.

JC

[Bnonn Tennant]

It seems to me that the only show-stopping attacks in a swordfight would be either to the head, or to the hands.

If you sever the spinal cord or damage the brain, the fight is over. Your man is down and isn't getting up.

If you cut off his hands, the fight is also over. The wound isn't necessarily mortal, but your man can't fight when he can't hold his weapon. Of course, with a single-handed sword he could theoretically pull a dagger with the other hand, so there's that. But with a longsword, a cut to both hands is easier, and decisive; and a cut to one hand would still be pretty effective.

I also agree with Jeanry that lopping off a hand is not as hard as people think. Assuming your man is wearing no armor, a solid blow to his wrist by someone even remotely competent in the art of longsword will easily remove the hand.

Other attacks will certainly kill, but they aren't guaranteed instant show-stoppers. The German masters emphasized attacks to the head, thrusts to the body, cuts to the hands, and always, always, striking between guards. If your attack to his head fails, thrust to his body as a second option. If you can, cut off his hands. And always strike to a guard---because even if you totally nail him with a thrust through the heart, it could be that he's got one more zornhau for you before he collapses, and if you aren't in a position where you're ready to take the blow safely, you could still die too.

[s_taillebois]

Another factor in this somewhat sanguine conversation would be psychological, especially as it relates to the medical abilities of the time.
Rapiers, and to a degree thrusts from such as bastard swords, may not have been immediately incapacitating from a physical view. And may have played a role in the seemingly common mutual deaths linked to rapier fights. In the period in which this forum discusses, deep stab wounds were very difficult for them to handle. Often, death involved a series of infections, over an agonizing period of time. That in itself, could have been a psychological factor, many who knew the situation may have continued to fight...to 'finish it' for themselves, or to ensure their opponent ended the same fate.
Slashes, cuts and such, excluding the quickly lethal or immobilizing, may have had another effect. Some of these, the people of the time knew they had some potential of surviving (with the right physician and some thread). Possible then, these injuries provoked a similar response to a American civil war battlefield? Often in that situation, the wounded who could no longer fight effectively, would drop the weapon and start filtering off to the rear areas. And no doubt with the yeomanry this may have been a somewhat more likely situation. They weren't paid enough, or regarded highly enough by their social superiors, mayhaps to continue on after they had an honorable reason to escape. Especially given the medieval/Renn. armies tendancy to sometimes kill the wounded or the prisoners-often in outright massacres. Charlemagne did this with the Saxon's, Henry did so at Agincourt, and etc.
Could account for some of the dead at Towton who had been struck in the back of the head. These may have been the mobile wounded who tried to get clear and didn't make it.
So, possibly, how much damage was needed to incapacitate an enemy, in the late medieval, Renn., could have been conditional on psychological factors-which we would have a very hard time assessing. And the appraisal of the situation becomes more diffuse when leaders such as Richard 1st, Saladin, Joan Pouselle would be a factor. In those cases, people who normally might have tried to leave the field at the first wounding, seemed to have been willing to remain, despite the costs. So that would be a factor also, in deciding at what point the adversaries in the Med/Renn. ceased to be effective.