effect of cuts and thrusts

[Jay Vail]

Matt Easton posted these excerpts on the Schola Gladiatoria website. I thought they might be of interest to the members, since they show 1) thrusts with the small sword were not immediately lethal and a fatally wounded man can kill his opponent even while dying, 2) cuts from the cavalry saber were not always fatal, and 3) edge on edge parrying historically produced weapons notched like a saw.

On 15 November 1712, at 7 o'clock in the morning in Hyde Park, Charles Lord Mohun and the Duke of Hamilton met to duel with smallswords, over the matter of some property in Cheshire. "Jonathan Swift, the celebrated author of Gulliver's Travels', says in a letter to an acquaintance: "The Lord Mohun died on the spot, but while the Duke was over him Mohun shortened his sword and stabbed him in the shoulder to the heart." The Duke died nearby on the grass. An autopsy revealed that the Duke had been wounded in four places and Lord Mohun in three. The hands of both were badly cut where each had grasped the other's blade. They simply stabbed each other until they died." (Taken from 'Swords & Hilt Weapons', Anthony North, MMB 1993 London, p70)

_________________________

The following occurred during the 'Corunna' campaign under Moore in 1808 and is taken from personal accounts:

"Two sharp-sighted men, private soldiers of the 43rd, John Walton and Richard Jackson, were posted on high ground near the bridge with orders that on the approach of the enemy one man should stand firing while the other ran back to give warning of their numbers. It was difficult to see clearly through the torrential rain and the French cavalry were close upon them and had already captured some women and baggage cars before the two men saw their danger. Jackson stood up and ran for all he was worth to give the alarm, turning to fire when he heard the galloping hooves behind him. He received twelve or fourteen cuts from the slashing sabres of the French Hussars; but he crawled away and escaped to warn his regiment while Walton stood his ground, firing his musket while he could and lunging with his bayonet when the riders were on top of him. He wounded several of them and the rest retired, leaving him unhurt although his knapsack, belt and musket were cut in about twenty places and his bayonet, dripping blood into the churned-up earth at his feet, was bent double and notched like a saw."

Christopher Hibbert, 'Corunna', 1967, p101.

[RayMcCullough]

At Auburn University of Montgomery we read a book that covered the battle of Cowpens, a battle fought during the revolutionary war. The primary accounts of the battle mentioned the sabre wounds inflicted by the calvary. It amazed me how useless the sabre was at killing with cuts. It did no more damage to the mens skulls than cutting the flesh to the bone, but it did not cut through the skull bones killing them. It had caused no "real" damage.

[s_taillebois]

No doubt, men are often tougher than the damage done to them, at least for a while.
The examples provided are out of the 18th century. However, a thrust in the earlier period may have also been not immediately debilitating...as Silver and others had commented.
However there might be a pyschological aspect to the whole situation attendent to weapons used in the late medieval and Renn. Medically, the techniques of the time could handle fairly deep cuts via cauterizing, or other techniques, even weird stuff like fat based wound dressings.
However a wound caused by a thrust from bastard swords, estocs and such was something the medical techniques of the period could do little to treat. The usual was to feed the wounded a foul smelling broth, if the broth could then be smelled through the wound...no further treatment beyond a priest or being simply left aside was usually possible. And there are some accounts of wounded men who refused to drink this broth, because they knew what it meant.... dying from infection, internal saguination, or neglect, would be a consideration. So from a morale point of view, these wounds could have been debilitating in other aspects.
In discriptions of late medieval battles, these armies seemed to have sizeable proportions of men, who when wounded tried to leave the field.
So yes, in one on one, a thrust may not have been immediately debilitating, and problematic because the reciever could kill the giver.
But, given the possibility that many of the people of the period, feared both the way they knew they were going to die from wounds of these types, and feared dying unshriven...it's very likely that many would not have remained to fight it out to the last breath. From places like Towton, there is some indication that some of the dead, may have been walking wounded (or the soon to be dead) who were caught after the battle, when the victors could dedicate the time to bother killing them.

[Will Adamson]

At Auburn University of Montgomery we read a book that covered the battle of Cowpens, a battle fought during the revolutionary war. The primary accounts of the battle mentioned the sabre wounds inflicted by the calvary. It amazed me how useless the sabre was at killing with cuts. It did no more damage to the mens skulls than cutting the flesh to the bone, but it did not cut through the skull bones killing them. It had caused no "real" damage.

If I'm remembering this battle correctly the British should be the ones receiving most of the saber wounds. If this is so I have a few ideas that pretty much amount to less experience on the part of the American dragoons in mounted saber attacks. The British army at the time was pretty well known for being adept at bladed close combat, both saber and bayonet. I'm pretty sure that Cowpens was the first big success for American dragoons, mainly from gaining the element of surprise. Many of them were very new to this sort of tactic, so might not have had the necessary technique down.

We all know the difference experience in a technique makes.

Having done some mounted saber, I can tell you that it is pretty tricky to get a strong cut without unhorsing yourself. You pretty much have to let the forward momentum of the horse do alot of the work at high speed. You have to swing the sword though just to counteract the force of impact with the target and keep yourself on the horse. At lower speed is when you use the full arm motion seen in the movies.

Caveat: I had no real training in this or a manual. It was just experimenting with watermellons.

[John_Clements]

My book next year contain nearly 200 pages on historical sword wounds, with dozens of entries just like these, as well as dozens more describing instantly lethal thrusts from rapiers and smallswords as well as instantly lethal cuts from various swords and sabers. The cumulative material is eye opening.

JC

[s_taillebois]

M. Clements,

Looking forward to your publication of your research. Especially since (although generally not at ARMA) there is a tendancy to either over emphasize or minimize the effects of swords.
Also, I recall seeing a obscure painting of a English Churchman who was murdered sometime in the (I think, from the period style of the painting) Tudor era. It seems he was cut deeply on the upper legs, and had several thrust wounds into the chest cavity. And alas, and unfortunately typical, the book I owned which had the reproduction disappeared several states back...
Perhaps rather than discourse about the relative superiority of thrusts or cutting...the practice may have been common to use whatever worked...or perhaps some cuts were to temporarily immobilize then the thrust was to finish the unfortunate recepient? Certainly looks like that was the case in regards to the painting I initially referred to...
Also in your research, will there be reference to the effect of lances?
Although in all a very bloody subject...

[Matt Easton]

At Auburn University of Montgomery we read a book that covered the battle of Cowpens, a battle fought during the revolutionary war. The primary accounts of the battle mentioned the sabre wounds inflicted by the calvary. It amazed me how useless the sabre was at killing with cuts. It did no more damage to the mens skulls than cutting the flesh to the bone, but it did not cut through the skull bones killing them. It had caused no "real" damage.

Aha, this is something that comes up time and again in 19thC accounts - the reason is that they often didn't sharpen swords properly: Military issue swords were kept blunt until field action was imminent, and then the staff sergeant was put in charge of having edges ground on them all... In the National Army Museum in London there is a photo of this sharpening being done in the Crimea... on a great big grinding wheel, with a sword in one hand and a pint of gin in the other.
British Officers serving in India often reported that the Indians knew how to sharpen their swords properly so that they greatly outperformed the British swords.

Jay: it was the bayonets that were notched like saws: these bayonets were triangular-section and often of very dubious quality.

Matt

[Sripol Asanasavest]

This is probably why it is more effective when you slash you aim for vunerable areas like the jugulars, the clavicles, the shoulders (cutting deep into the clavicles and shoulders makes it nearly impossible to move the arms properly) or just cutting off the head or try cutting the area just behind the knees (I don't know the name) where it allows you to move your lower part of your legs and then finish him off as he falls to the ground. For thrusting or stabbing it is usually better done on the stomach and lower abdomen which you have to go in about 3 inches. If you pierce the intestine you are probably dead for sure since in the old day they didn't have antibiotic and the leakage of bodily waste from the intestine to surrounding cavity can cause a slow painful death.

[Rod-Thornton]

Sripol.... NEARLY impossible, eh? Also, ..PROBABLY dead FOR SURE...?

(Just having a little fun bud, don't get angry.... As someone who has broken a clavicle, I can tell ya' , it's a little more certain than nearly impossible....

...(cutting deep into the clavicles and shoulders makes it nearly impossible to move the arms properly) or just cutting off the head or....

If you pierce the intestine you are probably dead for sure