How much is enough?

[Gene Tausk]

Jake:

As a criminal defense attorney, I have the opportunity to speak with many people who are in jail or are on their way in. Some of these people are hardened felons. Some have been in more fights in a year than I have been in my entire life. I also get the opportunity to speak to the prison guards who witness the brutal violence that occurs in jails.

My overall impression, from listening to these people and seeing the evidence (videos, etc), is that the human body is capable of absorbing a great deal of punishment, even when that punishment is meted out with lethal weapons. One fight I saw on video from one of the Fed penitentiaries involved an inmate who received 37 stab wounds from a 5 inch "shank" and who not only survived, but succesfully fought back against multiple opponents while being stabbed.

To say that one blow will always finish a fight is absurd. To expect that one blow will finish a fight means that the person making this assumption is asking for a very rude awakening.

Of course, the argument goes, getting stabbed or cut by a sword is different from being stabbed or cut with a knife. True, of course. However, I stand by my statement that the human body is capable of a great many things. One should never expect that one blow will finish a fight.

------->>>>>>>>gene

[Guest]

I'm not sure all swords are more deadly than knives, as long as thrusts are considered, because knives and daggers stab in bursts or can slash out of the wound with the zipper bag effect (my grandfather wittnesed a murder made this way, bad experience). Surely long swords and broader swords in general make big holes, with thinner ones like small swords you risk a paradoxical situation: say you thrust carte to the chest, if your opponent does not go down and your sword stiks into the wound...better run.
With cuts this risk is negated I think and they should also be faster to double.
Carlo
BTW: I assure you that there are people who, when get cut, get convinced they're about to die and will probably do so if you do not persuade them of the contrary.

[Guest]

Di-Grassi specifically mentions to cut upon every opportunity, whether great or small. He also writes about that some men may rush in headlong (although rare) after he has been wounded, and for you to have patience, his bleeding will eventually slow him down. Most of Di-Grassi’s work is based around that a man will stop or not complete his attack when struck. This I do believe to be the majority of cases, people will at least pause to asses the damage. Hands and arms are primary targets in both Japanese and Western Sword arts, if these are incapacitated (or removed), and your opponent can no longer hold his weapon, then the fight ends as you wish. His fight is over.

I believe “How Much” is in the nature of the fight. If it is a fight to the death, you will keep going until one or both of you are incapacitated or dead. If better sense prevails, quarter or mercy is given (just remember to exercise extreme caution). Obviously if it were a duel, and you had pre-agreed to ending conditions, and you both followed those agreements, (probably why each man had seconds present), then stopping would be pre-arranged base upon that agreement (first blood, surrendering, unable to continue, etc.)

There have been written accounts, and I believe Swetnam mentions that just the act of two men showing the courage of going into a field to fight may have been enough (or at least to show mercy). Swetnam suggests targeting none lethal areas if you can, to save you from the law (or gallows). I believe that most men wounded, if they have an option to reconsider, will. Once again it is the nature of the fight.

[Jeffrey Hull]

The reading of Teutonic and Celtic sagas has taught me:

1. That warriors might be wounded repeatedly before dying in battle; might outlast the battle to languish and die later; or might even survive the battle.

2. That warriors tended to throw all the strength they could into each strike, such that they might cripplingly and quickly slay their foes.

This would seem to correlate with the ideas that are generally accepted by members of ARMA, and by other HEMA who are interested in the truth about the fighting of the European past.

I am unsure as to why anyone would find the aforesaid points hard to believe in regards to such most likely having been the reality of Medieval warfare.

JH

[Brian Hunt]

Erich,

since you ask I will relate a story of many years ago that happened to me when I was 17. I was on a school marching band trip, the town we were staying in had a ice cream shop about 4 blocks from the hotel we were at. I hurried down there to get an ice cream and I barely made it before closing, so it was about 9 p.m. at night. I sat outside at the tables they had and enjoyed my treat.

On the way back to the hotel two guys stepped out of an alley, one hit me in the kidney, and the other tried to stab me in the stomach with a knife. Despite the pain of the kidney punch, I still managed to get enough of a low block in that the knife went in my leg instead of in my stomach. I remember the sick feeling of having that thing enter my leg, and then the terrible anger I felt at having been so attacked. I remember seeing nothing but red, then when I stopped seeing red both men were down and out, the folding knife was on the ground broken in two at the folding joint. I then limped back towards the motel stopping at the store to pick up some things to treat my wound.

I was lucky, I hadn't been properly aware of my surroundings and I got off with just a knife in the leg. It sure was a real pain having to march in a parade the next day - thank god for gauze, butterfly bandages, and hydrygen peroxide, not to mention short parade routes. <img src="/forum/images/icons/ooo.gif" alt="" />

Anyway the point is that you can never be sure what someone else will do when stabbed with a knife or a sword, and you can never be sure what your own reaction may be until it happens. Different people react differently. At this time in my life I reacted with blind rage, maybe now that I am older and better trained my reactions would be different. One definate difference is that I would not now approach that dark spot by the alley with such non-chalance, then maybe I wouldn't have had to be in that situation.

Just a small part of my life and my 2 cents on it.

Brian Hunt.

[John_Clements]

Bob, can you point out where Swetnam mentions targeting non lethal areas to avoid homicide? I can't seem to locate it.

Thanks.

JC

[John_Clements]

Hank R. [censored] to tell about a knife fight he witnessed in a bar parking lot where the first guy was stabbed mortally in the kidney area but then slashed the other guy across the neck, the blood squirted six feet for the first second he said, then two feet the second, then gurgled out the third, before the man fell. The other just stood there with the other guy's knife stuck him and died a few minutes later.

[Jake_Norwood]

I was talking to a paramedic who had a very similar story. He arrived on the scene of a fight between two friends--both drunk--at a party. Knives were pulled and they stabbed each other. Niether of them claimed to be hurt badly and both denied having anything serious. The paramedic checked just to be sure. One of them had a wound almost 3" deep and 6" accross on his belly. The other had a similarly sized wound about a centimeter from his heart. The second, who seemed in better condition, died shortly thereafter.

Jake

[Guest]

J.C.

This is what I can find from chapter 12: I do not have the whole text of Swetnam, but I have worked multiple times via class instruction from Mr. Fick. We get together for personal instruction 4-5 times a year. He has spoken about this subject specifically regarding the legal aspect and makes a point to include the legality issues in his teaching. The text I targeted seems to support it, but once again, I go on “others” statements. I do know that Silver talks about the law in his Briefs:

Silver - Briefs

Animating the minds of young gentlemen and gallants to follow those rules to maintain their honors and credits, but the end thereof for the most part is either killing or hanging or both to the utter undoing and great grief of themselves and their friends, but then to late to call it again. They consider not the time and place that we live in, nor do not thoroughly look into the danger of the law 'til it be too late, and for that in divers other countries in these things they have a larger scope than we have in these our days.

Swetnam - 4th paragraph under Showeth of seven principal rules whereon true defence is grounded

but it is chiefly meant here the place offence; thou must marke which is the nearest part of thine enemie towards thee, and which lieth most unregarded, whether it be his dagger hand, his knee, or his leg, or where thous maist best hurt him at a large distance without danger to thy selfe, or without killing of thine enemy.

Swetnam - 7th paragraph under Three manner of waies for the holding of a Rapier.

if your enemie doe beare his points anie thing abroad, then you may fall in betwixt them, either to his face or breast, or if his fore foote stand two foote distant or lesse from the other if hee stand not close, then you may hurt him in the knee or legge, either with thrust or blow as hee standeth in his guard without anie danger to your selfe, and that is no killing place.

Swetnam - Paragraph - Another defence of a passage

for why may not thy enemy bee as skilfull as thy selfe, once if he meete thee in the field, he sheweth himself valorous therein, and if it be thy fortune to hurt him by want of skill in a manner amongst men, hee is reported to be as good a man as thy selfe, in regard he adventured himselfe with that small skill hee had, and then in respect of an honest minde, oughtest to show him some favor, if he be not too forward, whereby hee is like to endanger thee, but yet rather hurt, then be hurt, and rather kill, then be killed, if there be no remedie.

[John_Clements]

Hi,

Yes, I know these, that's why I was curious, becuase I don't see a direct statement that would mean you might want to only wound an opponent, which is why I asked.(though I am sure it's possible they did at times feel that way).

Silver is more or less saying it's best to avoid duels, Swetnman is saying first that you might make a wound that is not necessarily a killing one, but he doesn't say you wouldn't then follow up afterwards with a lethal one. Then the last one I think might be even taken to mean it's better to wound or kill him than be wounded or killed yourself?

JC

[Guest]

Swetnam details many killing blows (thrust) throughout his book as you know. He defiantly doesn’t pull to many thrust. If wounding the man predicates finishing him off, then that is the type of fight it is.

I interpret in certain cases if you did not want to kill your opponent, just wound him, to target the areas that are considered no-killing place. How your opponent responds to being wounded, may possibly determine the outcome. (He may not want to continue and you may not want to kill him).

I perceive the last Swetnam statement really to mean "Do unto others as they would do unto you". That you would show favor to your enemy if he is not to forward - Hurt rather than be hurt, Kill rather than be killed. To me this is an answer to "How much".

As for legality, dueling was illegal. I believe if you didn’t kill your opponent, you probably weren’t going to be subject to the gallows, but if you did, then you risked your neck. This is what I get from Silver. As I stated before, I have not read all of Swetnam, but would like the opportunity. I expect that there would be something in there regarding the common law of the time.