A question regarding Rapiers..

[Ryan Ricks]

see, this is kind of what i thought.

i know there is a lot of mythology surrounding bladed weapons, such as that flamberge/wavy blades cause more lethal wounds, or that fullers are there to let blood flow out and prevent suction from making the blade stick in someone's body.

therefore it is not inconcievable that such mythology inspired those at the geneva convention to outlaw such bayonettes.

ryan

[Shane Smith]

Casper nailed it. A nasty flesh wound remains a flesh wound. Even a missing arm can be tourniqueted off and you won't necessarily die but a punctured heart or lung is pretty tough to fight back from...I'll take a nasty slice over a vital puncture any day...That said,a missing/cloven head is also a bit tough to recover from <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

While I will readily admit the deadliness of the thrust,I am totally un-moved by the rapier personally,it just doesn't suit my mentality.Give me a blade that will cleave AND thrust and all is well for me...To each his own. <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Brian Hunt]

I agree with JC on this one. jA puncture is a puncture, no matter the shape of the object administrating the puncture. A trianglular cross section is stiffer than a diamond one, just because a triangle is structularly stronger than a square. After all, a diamond cross section is just a squashed square.

just a thought.

Brian Hunt.

[Shawn Cathcart]

Also with thrusts, or if you like bayonets, single shot or musket shots, the problem is with bits of cloth(almost always soiled and dirty) and other debris being pushed deep into the body. Causing infection in places that at the times were extremely hard to disinfect. Gangrene is a nasty thing.

It would be interesting to find out when, if at all the shape of bayonets was outlawed. They were still issued with no problems throughout WWI. However battle almost never came to bayonet range and most bayonet wounds found were determined to be inflicted after the victims death. So I don't see that banning them because of the wounds they made makes much sense. Because even as late as WWI they weren't inflicting that many wounds percentage wise. Just an observation.

[Scott Anderson]

the only thing i can find in the geneva conventions reguarding to the restrictions on bayonets is as follows (Item 5 specifically)

"The specific applications of the prohibition formulated in Article 23 , paragraph 1(e), of the Hague Regulations, or resulting from the Declarations of St. Petersburg and The Hague, are not very numerous. They include:

1. explosive bullets and projectiles filled with glass, but not explosives contained in artillery missiles, mines, rockets and hand grenades. (55)
2. "dum-dum" bullets, i.e., bullets which easily expand or flatten in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions (56) or bullets of irregular shape or with a hollowed out nose; (57) [p.405]
3. poison and poisoned weapons, (58) as well as any substance intended to aggravate a wound; (59)
4. asphyxiating or deleterious gases. (60)
5. bayonets with a serrated edge, (61) and lances with barbed heads. (62)
6. hunting shotguns are the object of some controversy, depending on the nature of the ammunition and its effect on a soft target. (63)"

I cannot find the word bayonet anywhere else in that section of the document.

SPA

[Ryan Ricks]

which geneva convention was that? there are several, i think.

one came out just prior to world war one, i believe, in the late 19th century.

the girl who told me this said it was from one of the later ones. i don't really know myself, international law isn't my speciality.

ryan

[DavidEvans]

I used to have a reprint of a 17th Century surgeon's treatise of his working life's experciences. I can not remember the gentleman's name for the life of me but I do recall clearly that ALL puncture wounds of the body were fatal, if they pentrated any organ at all. Since the body is quite tightly packed with organs I'd say that it was a given that any penatration deeper than an inch was going to kill the target sooner or later!

[John_Clements]

I've got a lot of material from historical wounds, and in several cases rapiers passed right through men and they lived. In others, they took dangerous chest stabs and survived. Odd.

[Jamie Fellrath]

It could be that such non-fatal thrusting wounds were notable simply because they DIDN'T kill, and that's why they were mentioned so often. It is possible to have the rapier push through a body and bypass the organs.

[Casper Bradak]

There are no lack of such injuries recorded from firearms. That's the thing about thrusts, they're small. If they aren't accurate, they may not do any significant damage.