Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2009 5:21:32 GMT
I think they started getting pointy to be better against armor, but even after that was no longer an issue very few swords seemed to have broad blades. I think people started putting more emphasis on thrusting, but wouldn't a sword thrust with a rounded tip 50 mm wide blade case a much deadlier wound than a rapier with a pointy 17 mm wide blade? (assuming it was well balanced for thrusting)
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Dec 8, 2009 5:39:53 GMT
Swords indeed got pointy so they could get through the small gaps of plate armor and spread the mail links below. as for why they stayed pointy, I am going to guess because that makes a faster and lighter sword and doesn't greatly detract from the deadly effectiveness. Also later in period lighter blade were prefered for dueling not only for their speed and ease of carry but also BECAUSE they where less deadly. many duels in late period were not fought to the death but rather to first blood.
or to just summ it all up "the better to poke you with my dear"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2009 15:29:56 GMT
It's a few things:
(1) If you're doing all your damage with the point, blade width doesn't get you much. Yes you get a wider external wound, but you have to exert more effort to create a wound of the same depth because you're cutting through more stuff as you penetrate. Or looking at it the other way, you make a shallower wound for the same amount of effort. If the point is what matters, why require more effort?
(2) In gunshot wounds (and one would expect with rapiers, etc too) you're trying to stab deeply into sensitive parts of the body, especially the chest. This means you want your stabbing weapon to miss the ribs and penetrate deeply enough to do damage to the vital organs. If the blade is too broad, you'll have a harder time fitting through the ribs. If you do hit a vital organ that causes lots of bleeding, it doesn't matter if you make a large external wound. For bleeding, what matters is whether the blood is in the cardiopulmonary system or not. Internal bleeding into the chest cavity is just as bad as the same amount of blood loss onto the ground.
(3) How hard you can thrust (the load that will pass down the length of the blade) is largely determined by the swords buckling load. Once the sword starts to bow into a curve, you're not going to add much to the thrusting power. The blades thickness has a much larger effect on this than it's width. You can get rid of a lot of width, lighten the blade down, and still have a very similar thrusting capability to wider sword. Better yet you can subtract width and add thickness and get a better one.
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Dec 8, 2009 16:40:15 GMT
Great description. To add just a bit, if you thrust a wide sword blade with a somewhat bluntly shaped tip into the ribs, and the sword blade is vertical, i.e. the point edges are perpendicular to the slots between the ribs, the blade will flex and instead of getting penetration you will push your opponent away. That hurts and causes bruising, but that's really not what you wanted. That's why thrust-oriented swords have had sharply pointed tips since at least 1200 BC. In fact, that seems to have been the most common form of bronze age sword blade in Europe. Like these.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2009 17:12:11 GMT
To add just a bit, if you thrust a wide sword blade with a somewhat bluntly shaped tip into the ribs, and the sword blade is vertical, i.e. the point edges are perpendicular to the slots between the ribs, the blade will flex and instead of getting penetration you will push your opponent away. It's also why some of the older generation of fighting knives (like the Fairbairne-Sykes) are designed to be held with the blade flat (like it would be if you set it on a table). That way it slips through the ribs. I believe some of the civil war saber manuals emphasize holding the blade point forward and blade edge toward the sides for similar reasons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2009 20:10:29 GMT
If we are talking about civilian weapons -rapiers and so on- then first of all it's not entirely correct to say they were all narrow. It would vary from weapon to weapon, some would have fairly broad blades. For example, there is a beautiful pappenheimer in the Army Museum in Stockholm with a peculiarly shaped blade, almost leafy, with a slight swelling near the hilt.
In general, though, fencing was designed almost entirely around thrusts for various reasons - increasing one's distance from one's opponent, the belief that the point was deadlier then the edge, the fact that they were originally designed to be used in narrow alleys, and so on.
Anyway, to me it comes down to this: if you are a gentleman trained in a fighting style that does not require and even discourages hard hitting, why would you want to carry a heavier sword then you had to? (Especially since this type of sword is already heavier then most people tend to think.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2009 15:10:19 GMT
Long, narrow blades with a stiffer spine were used exclusively for the thrust- sharply pointed and narrow, it was the path of least resistance with regard to parting flesh. See the Estoc, or English Tuck for a visual representation.
As Mike and others have said, it was good to get into all the gaps, not just in armor, but between ribs as well.
|
|