Sword cutting bone

For Historical European Fighting Arts, Weaponry, & Armor

Moderators: Webmaster, Stacy Clifford

Ryan Dawson
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:16 pm

Sword cutting bone

Postby Ryan Dawson » Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:56 pm

This is my first post, but I figured if anyone can give me a definitive answer, ARMA is the one to ask.

Today my brother and I were chatting about the sharpness of a sword with regard to the idea that a rolled, wet tatami mat is similar to cutting an arm or leg, and three imitates a torso. I found that claim suspect, because a tatami mat lacks any of the hard bits that a human body contains. He made a comment that I found unlikely, however; he said that swords are not meant to cut bone, and that hitting a bone is likely to blunt a blade (though, he acknowledges, not to break it).

I disagreed emphatically. This is a weapon intended to cut into a human body. What sort of weapon loses its effectiveness after a single good hit? Over time, perhaps, hitting bone many times might blunt a blade, but even that seems pretty questionable to me.

So, I throw the question out here. What happens when a sword -- a medieval broadsword, a katana, a scimitar, whatever -- hits bone? Does it damage the blade? Does the blade even slow down? Does it somehow actually cut the bone, or just sort of smash it under the point of impact?

And as a side question, how accurate is cutting tatami versus a human (or human analogue like a pig)? I've heard many modern "samurai" (I guess I should say "kendo masters" or something, really) claim that their forebears could cut a man literally in half, with tatami-cutting given as evidence. Could they really do that, through ribs and spine and all? I have no doubt a man could slice through six inches of flesh, but you'd be hard pressed to find such a target on an actual man -- and that's not even considering variables like armor (even cheap pikeman stuff), belts, and other interruptions.

User avatar
Sal Bertucci
Posts: 591
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:04 pm
Location: Denver area, CO

Postby Sal Bertucci » Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:53 pm

Ok people correct me if I'm wrong.

Swords can/could cut through bone without severely dulling. My kitchen knife can do that much. Will it slow the blade down more than cutting flesh, of course.

As for cutting a man in half. Note that those you talked to didn't say they could do it during battle. An actual fight doesn't give you time to get the right cut, but if the victim just stood there I believe it is possible. I's say it would have to be done as a completely horizontal cut at the naval level. The only bone there would be the spine, with the organs giving minimal additional resistance.

Another thing you need to remember is that tatami mats were created b/c samurai were no longer allowed to go in the fields and slice up peasants to test the sharpness of their swords. As a side note: peasants tend to be under nourished, which means they tend to be skinnier, as such, not as much to cut. (That last statement was pure hypothesis)

User avatar
Greg Coffman
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: Abilene

Postby Greg Coffman » Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:47 pm

I think you're on track Sal. Swords can effectively go through bone. Whether this is "cutting" the bone or breaking through it may be irrelevant. Some swords can do this better than others and a lot is based on the particular cut. It certainly wouldn't be uncommon for people to get hands, arms, and legs chopped off during battle.

User avatar
ChristineChurches
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:03 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Postby ChristineChurches » Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Keenath,

Welcome to the ARMA Forum.

Please change your profile name to your real first and last name as mandated by our forum rules. Thank you.

As for your question concerning a sword's ability to cut through bone - why wouldn't it? My kitchen knives do...and a sword would be traveling with greater momentum...

All sharp items become dull, chipped, "blunted" with use - this depends on the edge geometry, force applied when cutting, the cutting medium, and the temper of the steel. This is why we have sharpeners...
Christine Churches, Scholar-Adept
Forum Moderator
ARMA Las Vegas



He who hesitates.........is dead.

User avatar
Stacy Clifford
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 11:51 am
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Postby Stacy Clifford » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:21 pm

We've done test cutting on pork shoulders and a deer carcass before here in Houston, and I can tell you that wet, live bone (well, fresh anyway) can be cut quite neatly. Thinner bones like ribs don't really put up as much resistance as you'd expect, and we were even able to slice through a couple of ribs with a moderate thrust perpendicular to the rib cage. You won't always cut all the way through the bigger, heavier bones like the pork shoulder, but you can still cut deep into them, and they may crack and break under the force below the point where friction stops the cut. You can also get chips flying out just like when you hit wood with an axe. All in all, I wouldn't count on my bones to protect my organs too much after seeing that.

In John Clements' book Medieval Swordsmanship he mentions an account from all the way back in the 6th century written down by a monk of an unarmored man who was cut through all the way from his shoulder down to his hip bone. The man who killed him was so surprised that he cried out, "In truth, the wretch has no bones!" If a 6th century sword can do that, think what a longer sword made of better metal from a later era with better production technology can do.
0==[>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stacy Clifford
Free-Scholar
ARMA Houston, TX

Ryan Dawson
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:16 pm

Postby Ryan Dawson » Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:41 am

ChristineChurches wrote:As for your question concerning a sword's ability to cut through bone - why wouldn't it? My kitchen knives do...and a sword would be traveling with greater momentum...
Well, two points --
First, neither I nor my brother supposed that a sword couldn't cut bone, which seems to be what most of the responses are getting hung up on. The gist of it is whether or not a single bone-cut would significantly damage or dull the sword. In part, I'm thinking of katana, which (to my understanding) can't be sharpened very effectively.

Second, even with more momentum, I'm not real sure what a sword does when it hits a really significant bone like a femur. A butcher does it with an axelike cleaver specifically designed for the job of cutting bones. It's stout and short and heavy (for a knife), and not at all swordlike. If a longer, "swordier" blade worked better, somebody would've done it.

Oh, and by the way, the whole "cut versus smash" thing wasn't part of the main line of inquiry. I was just curious if anyone knew what mechanically happens to bone under that kind of hit. Normally you think of bone as being hard and brittle, but then you don't usually get to mess with fresh-from-a-body bones either, so maybe they just get brittle after being cooked.

User avatar
Sal Bertucci
Posts: 591
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:04 pm
Location: Denver area, CO

Postby Sal Bertucci » Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:05 am

Ryan Dawson wrote:
Second, even with more momentum, I'm not real sure what a sword does when it hits a really significant bone like a femur. A butcher does it with an axelike cleaver specifically designed for the job of cutting bones. It's stout and short and heavy (for a knife), and not at all swordlike. If a longer, "swordier" blade worked better, somebody would've done it.



Not necessarily. A shorter wider blade would be much preferred than a really long blade. Mechanically, you would almost the exact same cutting power with a wide short blade as a thin long blade, and it travels easier.

User avatar
Richard Strey
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 8:59 am
Location: Cologne, Germany

Postby Richard Strey » Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:35 am

Ryan,
at one of our group's annual training camps, we test-cut a pork shoulder, which we later roasted. The meat was fresh and this was not my first cutting excercise, although the first on a substantial biological target. I did three Zornhäue (diagonal descending cuts) from my right. One cut through the femur, one though the shoulder joint's head, which was even thicker. One foot of meat was cut in each case, as well. Due to proper blade alignment, I barely felt any resistance. The blade was not damaged. The third cut was badly aligned and got stuck in the meat about an inch in.
All of this was performed with a "chisel-sharp" blade that I've also used to do murderstrikes onto car tires, without gloves.

Others in our group did strikes where they hit the bone with bad blade alignment and this did indeed damage the blade. It was slightly dulled and in one instance, the edge was chipped. It may, however have been due to bad hardening and/or wrong sharpening of the blade.

User avatar
Stacy Clifford
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 11:51 am
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Postby Stacy Clifford » Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:00 am

I should also mention that none of our blades were damaged in our test cutting either. Cutting any hard substance will dull the blade slightly and have cumulative effects, but unless your edge is very thin or you strike at a very bad angle, one swing shouldn't do much by itself.

As for the butcher knife, remember that a butcher works indoors where swinging a three-foot sword around isn't very practical, so he needs a blade that will give him lots of momentum with a relatively short swing to avoid impaling the ceiling or the customer on the other side of the counter. I'm sure the shorter blade also gives finer control for things like thin, even slicing. Just like a sword, it's the most optimal design for the job it's intended to do.
0==[>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Stacy Clifford
Free-Scholar
ARMA Houston, TX

User avatar
s_taillebois
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:29 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby s_taillebois » Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:54 pm

And in addition to edge geometry as noted much would depend on the blade form.
Something of a form like the Conyer's falchion would be very likely to pass through larger areas of bone, in part because of the mass and momentum related to the form of blade. To the extent that related blade forms to falchions were used by commoners for the slaughter and processing of animals.

A late period bastard sword, such as a type 15 would not be as likely to fully cut through bone. But given its stated purpose that wouldn't have mattered.

And to a degree the concept of a sword needing to cut through large masses of bone (and people) would be a equivalent to modern mythology about certain firearms. For example with the dead found at Towton, many of the lethal wounds are quite small, but nonetheless enough to ensure those gentry ended up in the field there...

So from the horribly pragmatic view of our predecessors whether a sword could cut through an entire skull, or cut into the skull deeply or simply shattered it wouldn't have mattered that much. What mattered was the target (whether it was Becket or some Unfortunate soul at Crecy and etc) didn't survive to reciprocate the courtesy. And in some cases after a person survived such actions, the sword itself may have been set aside as a reminder of a victory (for example the sword Henry used at Agincourt was buried with him and its unlikely it would have survived that long if it had been in continued use) or even given to the local priest as an atonement.
Steven Taillebois

Chris Moritz
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:01 am

Postby Chris Moritz » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:55 pm

http://www.economist.com/node/17722650

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------

Image


The battle of Towton
Nasty, brutish and not that short
Medieval warfare was just as terrifying as you might imagine

Dec 16th 2010 | TOWTON | from the print edition

THE soldier now known as Towton 25 had survived battle before. A healed skull fracture points to previous engagements. He was old enough—somewhere between 36 and 45 when he died—to have gained plenty of experience of fighting. But on March 29th 1461, his luck ran out.

Towton 25 suffered eight wounds to his head that day. The precise order can be worked out from the direction of fractures on his skull: when bone breaks, the cracks veer towards existing areas of weakness. The first five blows were delivered by a bladed weapon to the left-hand side of his head, presumably by a right-handed opponent standing in front of him. None is likely to have been lethal.

The next one almost certainly was. From behind him someone swung a blade towards his skull, carving a down-to-up trajectory through the air. The blow opened a huge horizontal gash into the back of his head—picture a slit you could post an envelope through. Fractures raced down to the base of his skull and around the sides of his head. Fragments of bone were forced in to Towton 25’s brain, felling him.

His enemies were not done yet. Another small blow to the right and back of the head may have been enough to turn him over onto his back. Finally another blade arced towards him. This one bisected his face, opening a crevice that ran from his left eye to his right jaw (see picture). It cut deep: the edge of the blade reached to the back of his throat.

Thorny tales

Towton is a nondescript village in northern England, between the cities of York and Leeds. Many Britons have never heard of it: school history tends to skip the 400-or-so years between 1066 and the start of the Tudor era. Visitors have to look hard to spot the small roadside cross that marks the site of perhaps the bloodiest battle ever fought in England. Yet the clash was a turning point in the Wars of the Roses. And, almost 550 years later, the site is changing our understanding of medieval battle.

In Shakespeare’s cycle of eight plays, the story of the Wars of the Roses is told as an epic drama. In reality it was a messy series of civil wars—an on-again, off-again conflict pitting supporters of the ruling Lancastrian monarchy against backers of the house of York. According to Helen Castor, a historian at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, the wars arose from the slow breakdown of English government under Henry VI, a man who was prone to bouts of mental illness and “curiously incapable” even when well. As decision-making under Henry drifted, factions formed and enmities deepened. These spiralling conflicts eventually drove Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, to assert his own claim to the throne. York was named Henry’s heir, but he was killed in December 1460. His 18-year-old son, Edward, proclaimed himself king just before the battle of Towton.

That set the stage for a vicious fight. Edward had his father and brother to avenge. After killing him, Lancastrian forces had impaled York’s head on a lance and adorned it with a paper crown. Following years of skirmishes others had scores to settle, too. In previous encounters, efforts had been made to spare rank-and-file soldiers. At Towton, orders went out that no quarter be given. This was to be winner-takes-all, a brutal fight to the death.

The result was a crushing victory for the Yorkists and for the young king. Edward IV went on to rule, with a brief interruption, until his death 22 years later—a death that triggered the final stage of the conflict and the rise of a new dynasty under Henry Tudor. The recorded death toll at Towton may well have been inflated to burnish the legend of Edward’s ascent to the crown. Yet there can be little doubt it was an unusually large confrontation.

In a letter sent nine days after the battle George Neville, the then chancellor of England, wrote that 28,000 men died that day, a figure in accord with a letter sent by Edward to his mother. England’s total population at the time is thought not to have exceeded 3m people. George Goodwin, who has written a book on Towton to coincide with the battle’s 550th anniversary in 2011, reckons as many as 75,000 men, perhaps 10% of the country’s fighting-age population, took the field that day.

They had been dragged into conflict in various ways. Lacking a standing army, the royal claimants called on magnates and issued “commissions of array” to officers in the shires to raise men. Great lords on either side had followings known as “affinities”, comprising people on formal retainers as well as those under less rigid obligations. These soldiers would have been among the more experienced and better-equipped fighters that day (foreign mercenaries were there, too). Alongside them were people lower down the social pyramid, who may have been obliged to practise archery at the weekend as part of the village posse but were not as well trained. Among this confusion of soldiers and weaponry, almost certainly on the losing Lancastrian side, was Towton 25.

The bone collectors

He gets his name from the order in which he was removed from the ground. In the summer of 1996 builders working at Towton Hall, about a mile away from the main battlefield, discovered a mass grave. Archaeologists from the University of Bradford eventually took charge of an excavation of almost 40 individuals, 28 of whom were complete skeletons. (Further bodies have subsequently been recovered from beneath the dining-room at Towton Hall, which must make for conversation, at least.) The skeletons had clearly been the victims of great violence. Many display the same frenzied wounding as Towton 25. “Imagine one of those movie scenes with people closing in on a cornered individual,” says Christopher Knüsel, one of the original team of archaeologists and now at the University of Exeter. “Usually the camera has to pan away because you cannot show some things. Here you see it.” The location of the bodies, and subsequent carbon-dating, linked them conclusively to the battle of Towton.

It is the only mass grave of known medieval battle victims to have been found in England. The only comparable find is that of a mass grave of victims of the Battle of Wisby in Sweden in 1361, which was excavated in the early 20th century. That find was considerably larger—1,185 individuals from four separate pits—and notable, too, for the fact that the dead had been buried in their armour. The Towton men had been stripped before being thrown into the pit. The only personal effect found in the grave was a silver ring still encircling the little finger of Towton 39; it may have been missed because of the sheer quantity of gore.

But Towton has proved more instructive in some ways. The size of the Wisby find and the way in which the bodies there were removed, with the graves broken into grids and excavated one square at a time, made it almost impossible to reassemble skeletons later. At Towton, under the guidance of Tim Sutherland, an archaeologist who has been researching the battlefield ever since, skeletons were carefully recorded in the grave so that they could be put back together again. As described in “Blood Red Roses”, a book on the archaeology of Towton, this has allowed a more complete picture of participants in the fighting to emerge.

User avatar
s_taillebois
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:29 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby s_taillebois » Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:40 pm

And this also brings up the reality that it was not necessary for the sword to cut through, or even into bone to have an effect.

Heavy bladed weapons like Falchions were popular because even if these did not get through mail enough force could be exerted through the mail and gambesons that probable fractures and etc might occur.

The same would happen with mauls, war hammers and the like during the plate armor period. These may not always have completely gotten through the armor, but could cause enough shock to cause fractures, nerve damage and the like. The murder stroke for example is basically using the quillions as a ad hoc war hammer or bec de corbin.

We tend to think of weapons as immediately disabling or killing, which is in part due to the gun (or at least sometimes hypothetical views of the guns power). But in the medieval and Rennaisance period once the man was downed he was likely to be killed as the succeeding wave of men passed, or killed in the mop up after the battle. At Towton (as cited by Mr. Moritz) many of those found in the mass grave met their ends after being brought down by secondary wounds and then killed as they were largely unable to respond defensively.

So it did not matter as much as it does to discussions today whether that blade could cut all the way through a femur or etc.

Plus these men practiced murder as a trade, so would have been quite aware of the benefits of targeting joints, even if these were not cut through a good whack onto a knee or elbow, shoulder is likely going to debilitate the adversary long enough for the killing strike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h0e0NSw ... A7AB7A1B3A

Mike Loades sword & helmet...the person under that helmet might have suffered fractured neck vertebra and the like...
Steven Taillebois

User avatar
Corey Roberts
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 6:11 pm
Location: Pyeongtaek, South Korea

Postby Corey Roberts » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:18 pm

Here a deer carcass is cut through in its entirety with a single longsword blow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v4j3mvrDyQ

Here the head of a deer is mostly lopped off with a single blow of an arming sword:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAqlCZPGktE

I don't believe the weapons involved suffered significant damage.

Do real people in a real fight sit there passively waiting for you to give them your best Zornhau? No-but swords can definitely cut through very large sections of the human body.
--Scholar-Adept
Pyeongtaek
Republic of Korea


Return to “Research and Training Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron

 
 

Note: ARMA - The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts and the ARMA logo are federally registered trademarks, copyright 2001. All rights reserved. No use of the ARMA name or emblem is permitted without authorization. Reproduction of material from this site without written permission of the authors is strictly prohibited. HACA and The Historical Armed Combat Association copyright 1999 by John Clements. All rights reserved. Contents of this site 1999 by ARMA.