Defenition of "Cut"

[Corey Roberts]

I've noticed that often when discussing rapiers with people who have limited knowledge on the subject I often have to define what I mean when I say "cut" often they seem to think that anything that can make you bleed a bit means it can "cut" so I've decided before I make a statement of "rapiers cannot cut" I have to define what a "cut" is. And I think this is a good working definition of "cut":

A forceful edge blow capable of causing a large, deep laceration or wound which would be incapacitating or lethal.

Any comments? Does this definitions sound good or is there anything else I could add to make it more complete?

[Will Adamson]

I think incapacitating and/or lethal are the key elements. Can it end the fight? If a cut were something of a first blood sort of thing like, "You have bled me sir, I withdraw the remark regarding your fair daughter's honor and lineage." then a wooden dowel could end a fight if struck hard enough in the right place. But it would be more appropriate to ask if it can end the fight from a mugger or assasin?

I think your definition is pretty much on, as well as more concise than most folks "in the know" would give. Just keep in mind that this won't work as a definition in the case of, "I cut myself shaving this morning." Within a sword context, I'd say pretty good.

Now excuse me, I'm going to go cut some watermelons for the picnic with my rapier. If I could just find my tilting armor.

[Kyro_Lantsberger]

So a cut is more than merely just a flesh wound?

[Allen Johnson]

Of course, before any of this discussion occurs you must make sure that the term "rapier" is properly defined as well. There are "rapiers" that are more cut & thrust that are very capable of fight ending blows. I too have wondered if there was a difference in the terms "cut', "blow", "strike", etc as they were written back in the day.

I suppose if you want to be technical about it even a thrust is " cutting". There is enough pressure on a sharp object to separate a softer object.

[Richard Strey]

I too have wondered if there was a difference in the terms "cut', "blow", "strike", etc as they were written back in the day.

I guess you are facing two problems here. The first would be to find out what the masters -if they weren't writing in modern English- really wrote. I daresay they did not put the words "cut/blow/strike" on paper. The next level would be to find out whether there was a systematic difference in the first place and if so, what it is.
In the end, I guess there are three categories:
1. Whack them so it has an effect.
2. Whack them so it kills them eventually.
3. Whack them so they drop dead on the spot.

Edit:
It might be interesting to note that at least in the German manuals, terms like "Hau" or "Schlag" were used when talking about a (swinging) cut. They do, however, refer to the swinging motion of the blow, not the flesh-damaging outcome. So, they were -intentionally or not- talking about the move you make and which you can actually control. Not the effect, which is dependant on the target etc.

[JeffGentry]

Of course, before any of this discussion occurs you must make sure that the term "rapier" is properly defined as well. There are "rapiers" that are more cut & thrust that are very capable of fight ending blows. I too have wondered if there was a difference in the terms "cut', "blow", "strike", etc as they were written back in the day.

I suppose if you want to be technical about it even a thrust is " cutting". There is enough pressure on a sharp object to separate a softer object.

Hey Allen

I have had this general discussion with a couple of people in the last year, I do think we need some understanding of how they defined cut, thrust, slice(schnitt), there are a number of passage's were they just say to strike the opponent and do not give any specific way to do this, the context come's from the rest of the text and that tell's us whether it is a cut, thrust, or slice.

(It even just occured to me that I am using the word cut at this moment and i am using it to mean large full arm blow, how you think i mean it may be any type of edge blow, Then the slice could also fall in that category if you are using a loose definition, you can cut a log with an axe or cut bread with a knife.)

In the German sytem we know they used the dre wunder or 3 wounder's, cut thrust and slice, so i think Richard is on the right track saying that the word describe's how the cut is done not the end effect of the blow, Jake Norwood has point out on a couple of occasion's the name's of the 5 hidden strike's describe's the nature of execution not neccesarily a specific way of doing them ie a krump hau or crooked cut, It doesn't go stright in, it has a croooked path hence the name krump hau or crooked cut.

I think this does have something to do with language and so we need to understand the way they defined cut before we can realy be definitive.

I would think a cut is more of a hard blow with the tip moving in some sort of an arc, so that would include from the shoulder, elbow or wrist.


Jeff

[Richard Strey]

I would think a cut is more of a hard blow with the tip moving in some sort of an arc, so that would include from the shoulder, elbow or wrist.

I'm on the same page here. I'd also include that the damage comes primarily from the impact, not from a drawing motion, as that would be the slice ("Schnitt").

[JeffGentry]

I would think a cut is more of a hard blow with the tip moving in some sort of an arc, so that would include from the shoulder, elbow or wrist.

I'm on the same page here. I'd also include that the damage comes primarily from the impact, not from a drawing motion, as that would be the slice ("Schnitt").

That was something else i forgot to mention, it was in my head, just didn't come out when i typed the reply.


Jeff