A new perspective on Cut Vs Thrust

[Dylan Asbury]

Hey guys..just had a thought. I remember a lot of quotes and refutations about the point being superior to the edge in sword combat. Now, Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't a lot of the masters who spoke of the superiority of the thrust masters of thrusting weapons? If that is true, then it makes sense. Fabris, for example, says the point is better to use than the edge. Fabris is also a rapierist. Why would a rapier master advise his students to predominate with the cut? The weapons is better designed for thrusting. And, in single combat with rapiers thrusts predominate, there are plenty of cutting strikes that are usable. But flip the coin and, even with the rapier, cuts become predominant with thrusts being used more sparingly. Now, the longsword having been developed as a weapon for battlefields, It makes sense that the style is predominantly a cutting one. Cuts are simply more useful in general against many enemies.

My point is, were the people who argued superiority of thrust over cut (at least, the earlier masters.) doing so within the context of weapons that were designed to thrust?

I know what I'm saying is nothing new or profound to people here, But I'm not an expert and I'd just like to introduce this take. Too often do I hear the phrases "Clumsy hacking weapon" or "sissy rapier". Point is, the weapons both existed at the same time and even later after the advent of the firearm. (indeed in Count of Monte Cristo, a character mentions having dueled a man three times with pistol, rapier, and two-handed sword...though it is fiction, does it seem terribly unrealistic? I mean, apart from two men surviving three duels against the same opponent with neither being seriously debilitated ) And I doubt the weapon masters of the period would have derided one another's blades or styles.

Just my thoughts, I'd appreciate yours

[Sal Bertucci]

Silver certainly had his opinion against Saviolo in specific, and rapier in general.

[Andrew F Ulrich]

Now, Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't a lot of the masters who spoke of the superiority of the thrust masters of thrusting weapons?

Yeah, that sounds about right to me. That's what my former fellow arma member kept saying when he was teaching me. I've never looked at the rapier stuff myself, though.

[Steven Reich]

Now, Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't a lot of the masters who spoke of the superiority of the thrust masters of thrusting weapons?

Yeah, that sounds about right to me. That's what my former fellow arma member kept saying when he was teaching me. I've never looked at the rapier stuff myself, though.

Actually, pretty much every Italian work written in the 1500s also speaks of the superiority of the thrust over the cut, including Altoni, Agrippa, Dall'Agocchie, Ghisliero, Di Grassi, Viggiani, etc. While we can debate whether or not they were right, none of these masters were "rapier" masters; they all described systems which made heavy use of cuts for weapons that fit the ARMA definition of "Cut & Thrust".

Steve

[Dylan Asbury]

Well, Steve, I didn't know that. But the question in my mind then, is this:
Why would the thrust be superior to the cut if the use of either is situational? I mean, I haven't read any of the authors you mentioned. All I know is what Fabris said about cutting Vs thrusting. It makes no sense to me for the same reason as claiming a straight punch is better than a hook punch...despite the fact that you use either one dependant upon the situation. Help me understand?

[s_taillebois]

A lot to do with context. Rapiers being mainly a civil weapon it was enough to disable a adversary by the thrust (although he may have died of insaguination or infection later. Honor (or pain) being usually enough to end the issue. A weird factor was that a thrust wound in civil combat was a type of courtesy, or a perverse kindness. In this period it was fairly common for the female relatives to prepare the body for burial-and having to piece together dismemberment's or crushed skulls would have been incredibly traumatic. And in a perverse sense it might have meant less atonement for the winner, less blood being shed than with a specifically cutting weapon. And in many contexts these weapons were as much to make a statement of class or style as these were a tool for killing people.

Any battlefield weapon cutting and thrusting would have been both paramount. The bastard sword type being a good example of a weapon designed to meet both needs. And the estoc was definitely a battlefield weapon and that was almost entirely a thrust oriented weapon.

Situational, perhaps contextual perception. With the development of epee/foil type fencing of course the thrust would be considered more paramount, or more artful. And possibly a distinct class bias was also involved. For example Falchions, and later Cuttoes and Hangers were mainly cutting weapons, which were often associated with the lower orders. The weapons well suited to the thrust such as the pointed double edged tapered swords (various kinds), rapiers and the later small sword and foil were all associated with the upper classes. Silver may have been expressing an opinion against the toffs as much as a statement of weapon effectiveness.
And many of the Italian masters may have been making it very clear they were not amongst the mob.

From the perspective of those in the late Gothic, or Renaissance it may not have mattered all that much unless one was writing and promoting a given manual. The fighters of the era were quite willing to use cutting swords, mixed use such as bastards, estocs, rapiers, halberds, pikes, war hammers and whatever else worked to murder each other.

As far as predominating with the cut, that may have been a matter (even with non cutting swords) of causing shock and sickness by blood loss with the opponent. The unfortunate souls at the Towton burial showed fairly few cut wounds (although some obvious hacking off hands).
But those were soft tissue and its very possible that cuts into the limbs were what disabled them to the point were someone could strike a war hammer, sword or etc into the skull. (Aside from the possibility these men were prisoners who were being executed).

Having had the questionable bliss of being cut fairly deep-it does seem to limit responses within a very short period of time. Plus in some areas like the shoulders a deep cut also disables nerves...

[Jonathan Newhall]

I mean, apart from two men surviving three duels against the same opponent with neither being seriously debilitated

This could in fact be the case: dueling conditions were changed quite often. In fact, it is quite likely because no result was obtained that they switched weapons. The offended party (challenger) made the "victory" conditions in a duel, while the challenged party had control over the weapons to be used. A neutral third party often chose the location and time.

In this way the duels may have simply been to fire at each other once with the pistols (both miss, smooth bore flintlocks after all), or the offended party may have been satisfied by the duel before any injury occured, or really any number of things. Being such honor-bound affairs, maiming and killing was hardly a necessity.

[Stacy Clifford]

The primary argument almost all the masters use for why the thrust is superior is very, very simple. Cuts move in a circular path, while thrusts move in a straight line. Since the shortest path between two points is a straight line, speeds and weapons being equal the thrust will arrive at its target first. The logic is pretty impossible to argue with, and remember this is the time when science and math gained new heights in popularity, so matching fighting styles to geometry had enormous (not to mention practical) appeal. It was also a well known fact that thrust wounds were much harder to treat and therefore more often fatal, so that was factored in as well.

This was also a time when civilians gained more access to swords and street duels were becoming more common. The obvious downside of thrusting is that it can only threaten one target at a time, but if most of your fights are with individuals in the streets or in narrow alleys then that might be an acceptable tradeoff to gain an advantage over your opponents. Of course as Mr. Tallebois said, they were still all too happy to use every manner of weapon to murder each other, but the overall combat environment was changing and thrusting sword conferred an advantage in the fastest growing sector of that environment, so they gained in popularity. The fact that they also conformed nicely to the intellectual environment only cemented their popularity with the masters and their educated clients, but not so much that it blinded them to the utility of cutting weapons in a multi-threat environment (the battlefield), which they still had to train men for.

Silver did have one good argument against thrusting weapons: if you're going to focus only on thrusting, your aim had better be good. A well-placed thrust is certainly quickly fatal, but there are a lot of places on the body where one won't kill you quickly and may not even slow you down much, and he describes fights where men received many stab wounds and yet kept fighting and survived. On the other hand, if I miss your head with a cut but sever your bicep, that will slow you down and create a noticeable advantage for me. Stabbing me in the liver may kill me four hours later on the surgeon's table in agony, but not before I cut your throat while I'm still impaled. So the tradeoff seems to be this: thrusts are deadlier but require greater accuracy to be so, while cuts are more survivable but more debilitating, allowing safer follow up to finish off an opponent.

Having done thrusting play in sparring enough I'll say this from experience: it certainly can work as advertised, but against a well-trained opponent who knows how to defend himself and moves well it is not at all easy to thrust accurately at moving targets on another man's body while he is trying to swat you away. Thrusting doesn't conserve momentum like cutting does, you have to draw back and start over every time rather than coming back around the circle again, so it's more tiring and your aim gets worse fast if you miss a few shots. I like having the ability to cut there as a backup plan even if I can dominate with the thrust because of that. Crippling somebody would just be too good a way to catch a breather if you run out of gas too soon in a fight. Thrusting satisfies the math, but cutting keeps the human element from becoming too big a liability. For that reason I prefer a cut and thrust over a true rapier.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Now, Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't a lot of the masters who spoke of the superiority of the thrust masters of thrusting weapons?

I think the evolution has not happened in this way...

On the contrary, masters of cut&thrust weapons started to emphasize the thrust, and then weapons were developped that were more efficient in this type of play. It's not the weapon that influenced the masters, rather the opposite.

Reading Fabris for example, I get the feeling that he knew absolutely everything you need to know about cuts. There is a substantial discussion on cuts at the beginning. A good part of the treatise describes how to defend against them. Yet he chose to focus on thrusting techniques because he felt they were giving a tactical advantage in the particular context he was training people for. He didn't switch to thrusting because all of a sudden there were no weapons left capable of cutting...

Actually I think that if we had a chance to see Fabris cutting with his sword (whether it qualifies as a rapier or not I leave open for discussion) we would be thoroughly impressed at the results

[Steven Reich]

Well, Steve, I didn't know that. But the question in my mind then, is this:
Why would the thrust be superior to the cut if the use of either is situational? I mean, I haven't read any of the authors you mentioned. All I know is what Fabris said about cutting Vs thrusting. It makes no sense to me for the same reason as claiming a straight punch is better than a hook punch...despite the fact that you use either one dependent upon the situation. Help me understand?

Just two quick points:
1. They may have felt the thrust to be superior, but not to the exclusion of the cut (which they used quite frequently). Even a weighting of 55%-45%, isn't "equal".
2. I'm not arguing either side, as I'm not trying to settle the cut vs. thrust debate, just answer the original question of this thread.

Steve

[s_taillebois]

Another factor may be been socially related to forms of warfare. The English kept to their use of armed yeomanry and so the distinction between a civilian weapon and a battlefield weapon was perhaps more blurred. Most of the people going to the wars in France, the wars of the Roses, and later the colonizing of the Americas may have had just the one weapon. And that may have been handed down from older generations.

The Italians however had become very reliant on mercenaries (some actually English free companies resultant from the wars in France) and so the distinction between battlefield weapons and civil weapons was likely much more distinct. For example the image of Gattamalata (albeit somewhat prior to the rise of the rapier) the sword he's shown with is something quite capable of both cutting and thrusting.

http://www.camarda.it/collocazionivarie/images/727.jpg

And anyway, if ones going to be murdering some lost soul from the other city faction in some narrow Florentine alley or street a thrusting weapon might be more suitable.

In urban areas, because of the cultural infatuation with the Italians (see Shakespeare) the English did adopt the rapier as a civil weapon amongst the gentry as a style statement. I don't own a rapier, but I assume these are easier to carry about than a broadsword, bastard sword, or longsword.
And some cities did have proscriptions against the open carry of battlefield weapons in their charter. Rapiers might have not been considered as such, and so could be carried.

[Jonathan Newhall]

Well, Tallebois, the rapier is certainly less bulky than a cut and thrust of any variety, generally speaking. So, yes, I suppose it would be quite easier to carry around.

[Steven Reich]

Well, Tallebois, the rapier is certainly less bulky than a cut and thrust of any variety, generally speaking. So, yes, I suppose it would be quite easier to carry around.

I don't know, I find the rapier to be not much lighter than a cut and thrust (even even the same weight), but more of a nuisance to wear because of the greater length.

Steve

[Dylan Asbury]

Stacy, I like your answer very much. It makes sense that way. Now, the downsides of the thrust are just as apparent as the downsides of cuts. This is why I was puzzled as to why one would be "superior" to the other since they are used for totally different reasons and to accomplish different aims.

And Steve, the 55/45 statement puts it into perspective.

As for having a "cut and thrust" rather than a true rapier, I'm sure most rapier masters would concur!

Thanks guys. I think my question is answered.

[Stacy Clifford]

I would disagree that a rapier is easier to carry around. It weighs about the same as any other single-handed blade, the mass is just distributed differently (thick, narrow blade instead of wide & thin, more weight in the hilt). It's as long as most two-handed swords and in some cases longer, and complex hilts are bulkier sitting on your hip blocking your arm from swinging. Really I think the only things that make two-handed swords more awkward to carry are the extra mass and extra length of the grip sticking out. Of course the ergonomics of swords were not designed around ease of transport...