|
Post by rammstein on Apr 17, 2007 1:38:44 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2007 2:15:32 GMT
Just because a lot of profile taper will add to thrusting ability, doesn't mean that a sword lacking profile taper cannot thrust. In the case of the type XIX, it retains thrusting ability despite a lack of profile taper because of it's hexagonal cross section, which does a good job of keeping mass down while retaining a stiff blade. Take that into account and also the fairly acute point, and you get the idea. Anyway, type XIXs were also not as broad as blades like the type XI. Because they were not as broad, they could be made a bit thicker to compensate. This extra thickness helps in rigidity and lateral strength also. It should be noted that the geometry of a type XIX blade does hinder it's cutting ability a bit. Not much, but a little. The best cutting geometry is a thin lenticular cross section(as seen on most viking blades and oakeshott types X through XIV). Overall, a Type XIX is a very nice compromise between cutting and thrusting. It cuts better than types XV, XVI, and XVII, and thrusts better than types X through XIV. It's also more durable than the XVIII(which is a bit more fragile because of the hollow ground edges).
It should also be noted that blades of hexagonal cross section didn't appear until later in sword development. I think this is a point of metallurgy. Heat Treatment methods and steel production wasn't advanced enough to temper a blade of type XIX to make it effective until later on, that's why I think they didn't become popular or even practical until the late 1400s and onward.
|
|
|
Post by Lancelot Chan on Apr 17, 2007 4:37:41 GMT
Thanks, Shooter. There's an implied point about the sleeve cutting. A cut made in such most unnoticed, slightest way would still slit open modern mutli-layers fabric and skin. If people compare the slightest cut with those I did with "Intent" on pig arm or those in sparring, the partner at the end of the video would have his arm cut off right away. He may survive but that would probably be a good fight-ender. That's the "implied" point of that cut. A bit violent, so I didn't state clear in the video because it was placed on youtube.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2007 12:01:35 GMT
The profile taper refers to the thickness of the Flat of the blade. On a norman style sword it it ususally thin with wide parallel edges. This makes for good cutting because the blade pushes aside less material, but if you thrust into anything semi-hard like leather, it will fold. The thickness of the profile taper on a Norman sword is usually the same thoughout the length of the blade.
Thrusting swords often have a dimond cross-section throughout the whole blade and the cross-section should get even thicker near the tip. That makes for better thrusting, but the added thickness of the flat of the blade causes more resistance in cuts. This feture is often ommited in modern reproductions because people might not be so happy if the can't cut their water bottles. Thrusting swords were not ment for that. Their primary purpose was to thrust.
I had a corespondance with aurther, John Clements, a while ago on this subject. He explained to me how he has examined museum thrusting swords and compared them to modern high end swords. Our modern reproduction thrusting swords are usualy lacking in the profile taper in favor of a better cutting ability.
The bottom line is you can't have everything in a sword. It is either a cutter or a thruster. Swords that attempt to satisfy both land in the middle and don't do either very well.
|
|
|
Post by Lancelot Chan on Apr 17, 2007 12:37:33 GMT
Usually the blade's thickness changes along the length are referred as "Distal taper" while the width changes "profile taper".
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Apr 17, 2007 20:08:17 GMT
Lancelot, I don't believe that his arm would have been cut off. Maybe cut through deeply enough to cause permanent muscle and flesh damamge, but certainly not enough to cut through the bone. Then you also have to remember to ask yourself: Is this quick cut enough to stop my opponent's attack? If not, and he keeps going from adreneline, then he still has the capacity to kill you while you've only given him damage an an auxiliary part. It's not a powerful kill and it certainly is not an instantaneous one, providing you cut the artery, so I wouldn't want to pull that in a fight.
Not that I don't agree with you as to how lethal the sword is...it's just not THAT lethal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2007 22:22:50 GMT
I disagree with that as well. If I'm in a duel and doing my job properly, than my hit shouldn't have to be something that kills him instantaneously in order to protect myself. That's why there's a big focus on using movements that provide offense simultaneously to defense... so that if adrenaline or momentum cause an opponent's cut to continue, I'm safe whether or not my own strike hits.
And Lancelot is correct. DISTAL taper refers to the rate of change of thickness of a blade of a sword cross-sectionally as one moves from hilt to tip. PROFILE taper refers to the rate of change of the outline of the profile of the blade.
And I disagree that there aren't swords which both cut and thrust adequately well. Type XII, XIV, XVI, XVIII, XIX were all swords with both cutting and thrusting capability to a significant degree. That's why type XII swords developed out of type Xs and XIs. That's why the XVI developed ouf of the XV.
Granted a type XIX won't thrust as well as a purely dedicated thruster like the XV, and it won't cut as well as a dedicated cutter like the type XI, but the margin of difference won't be that huge. At the end of a day, a Cut and Thrust blade may not cut as well as a pure cutter or thrust as well as a pure thruster, but i'll cut WAY better than a pure thruster, and thrust WAY better than a pure cutter, and it won't be too far behind those 'purebreds' in their design either.
The fact that in historical treatises there was instruction on both thrusting and cutting with the same weapons proves that there were swords that did both well.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Apr 17, 2007 22:37:06 GMT
Adam, I think you read my post incorrectly. It needs to stop him in his tracks, preferably kill him. even if your blow is lethal, but doesn't impede his path of motion (with him still being carried on by adrenaline and battle fury), he has the cpacity to strike a fatal blow against you, unless you do something to prevent his advance/attack. Your opponent NEEDS to stop, you need to be on your gaurd, or you need to get out of the way FAST. If not, he's very likely to kill you, or at least injure you. And double kills are not desirable.
That just refers to the first paragraph of your post, and since I didn't say anything to the latter parts, I agree with what you said in addition to your first paragraph (which we where in agreement on, regardless.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2007 22:39:56 GMT
My blow had better impede his path of motion and/or position me safely away from his own blow, otherwise I deserve to die, as in that case what I've done is very stupid indeed.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Apr 17, 2007 22:42:28 GMT
too true ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2007 18:27:57 GMT
Rammstein: not sure how experienced you are and i have a very small amount of experience however with certain fighting styles it is not about one hit one kill. Certain fighting styles use debilitating cuts before a final coup de gras. Other fighting styles particularly knife styles use blows to areas like hamstrings areas that incapacitate before again *schkk!*
A blow does not need to stop an opponent in his tracks as you put it, a blow must incapacitate. For example, with iaito it is basically one strike, one kill. The strike is not about stopping in tracks but about incapacitating with one good strike, although that can mean death. I guess there are so many variations in fighting style i just wanted to point out that different fighting style require different finesses or brute forces.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2007 12:12:40 GMT
Bloodwraith, I was thinking about your comment, since you posted it. I considered a lot of things I have seen in my fighting experience. Certainly a lot of fakes and teaser blows are not hard but can be very harassing, so I tried to put that all into prospective.
I remembered a conversation I had with a boxer 12 years ago. He was showing me some of the basic drills of working the heavy bag. I asked him if jabs needed to be hard? They were just jabs after all, meant to tease, harass, create distance and set up harder punches. He told me if your jabs are consistently light, the other person will not fear them. The will come to expect light jabs and will just step into it, take the light hit, and knock your lights. That makes a lot of sense to me. So transferring this line of thinking over to the various weapons arts, if you opponent picks up a pattern that your blows are light, he might allow you to hit an armored part of his body and use the opportunity step in with a kill. Your intentions may not be to kill, but his might... after all even the worst fighter can land a lucky shot.
So my conclusion is that, sure not all shot will be intended to kill, you will do fakes and teases in order to maneuver your opponent....but in order for those to be effective, your opponent must believe in his mind that every shot you are going to throw is intended to kill or maim him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2007 14:32:02 GMT
Tsafa: sorry, i assumed we were talking about unarmed combat, maybe i didn't make that clear, when i was referring to style i was referring to rapier or sabre. If we are talking armour i guess it is a whole different kettle of fish. You have far more experience than me and so i will defer, i guess all i can speak for is what i know in theory as there are no places here that i know of that do WMA so i am restricted to studying books and theory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2007 15:33:25 GMT
It is a good discussion, to be considered for all all weapons forms.
I also practice unarmed Rapier, and in that respect I agree with you. The rapier has a great force concentration at the tip (so does a longsword). The argument at my Rapier practice is how light the hit needs to be. Some argue for a 4 inch bend in the flexi-blade, others say that is over kill and that a stiff jab is sufficient. In either case you certainly don't need too come out the other end to stop someone. Three inches of penetration with the point will end the fight. Slices and cuts are pretty much an after thought with the rapier should your thrust miss and you find yourself close enough. In my practice we count slices with the rapier as a kill. Cuts are not allowed. In a real life duel I would consider them more harassing with the rapier.
A traditional saber (not classical saber) has much more mass then rapier, so I can see even a medium hit being very dangerous to an unarmed opponent. A light hit with a 3 lb, sharp saber can offer a respectable threat too.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Apr 19, 2007 18:35:41 GMT
bloodwraith, I would assume that a light shot (unless well placed, but certainly not ANY arms shot unless you've impaled his arm and he physically CANNOT move forward or it is severed altogether) would not be incapacitating. If you're busy peppering little draw cuts to his legs, what's to stop him from killing you with one mighty parting strike? Seems to me to be a terrific waste of energy trying to land little blows when one fast, hard, accurate blow would do the same. Remember the point of sword fighting was to kill your opponent, not to show off or hit him as many tmes as possible. You should either stop him in his tracks or render him otherwise incapable of hurting you, the former being most preferable in my point of view. Thoughts? pm being sent on designs by the way
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2007 19:37:26 GMT
In rapier fencing, one of the best strategies is to aim for the hand. Take one hand and he usually has to switch to his weaker hand, take that one too and he can't fight. Swords have crossguards, swepthilts and cuphilts to help protect against this. That is when you have to get him to move around and open up.
In he range game, one of the biggest differences I see is sword and shield vs. rapier. A shieldman generally will move into range and fight comfortably from there. The shield covers three-quarters of the body; legs can still be out of range. From this position he can strike his opponent anywhere from the waist up. No need to bother taking arms if you can take a head. Occasionaly, you might move out of range to rest a second, but then you come back into range and fight from there.
The rapier fighter (also longsword, polearm and all non-shield forms) does not have the shield to protect him. Therefore they fight from an out of range position. Being out of range is the best defense, period. That is where they perch, execute an attack that will briefly bring them in-range, and then retreat out of range. In non-shield fighting where you are out of range, striking the hands or arms presents a less risky option. If your opponents hands are injured, he will likely yield or be killed.
I just wanted to point out two instances where in one it is strategic to aim for smaller non-lethal targets, like the hands and another where it is not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2007 21:33:07 GMT
bloodwraith, I would assume that a light shot (unless well placed, but certainly not ANY arms shot unless you've impaled his arm and he physically CANNOT move forward or it is severed altogether) would not be incapacitating. If you're busy peppering little draw cuts to his legs, what's to stop him from killing you with one mighty parting strike? Seems to me to be a terrific waste of energy trying to land little blows when one fast, hard, accurate blow would do the same. Remember the point of sword fighting was to kill your opponent, not to show off or hit him as many tmes as possible. You should either stop him in his tracks or render him otherwise incapable of hurting you, the former being most preferable in my point of view. I don't think we're on the same page here. My point, and I think Lancelot's as well, is that you don't have to hit hard to incapacitate. We're not trying to advocate little scratches and tiny lacerations, we're just trying to say that it doesn't take much force behind a sword(given that it's a good sword, and a good swordsman) to do some real nasty damage. Just look at some of the tameshigiri videos on youtube... a lot of those guys that do some amazing cuts certainly aren't putting a lot of brute muscle into their cuts, they're certainly not 'hard' but rather soft, fluid, controlled... it's good technique. It's incredibly DIFFICULT but it's not HARD(as in physically hard). And when you put armor into the equation, TACTICS change, not how hard you hit.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Apr 19, 2007 22:47:49 GMT
Adam, I still wouldn't be so sure of that. FOr evidence, I site the bodies found at the battle of visby. Many of the skeletons had over fifty wounds on them ranging from tiny fractures to outright shattering of the bones. Obviously, we can't see flesh damage, but we can assume that either they kept on fighting after recieving MANY wounds, or that someone took the time to vandalize almost EVERY body on the field. and from what I read, #2 is far-fetched because it was so hot that bodies had to be buried in armour (instead of looting) since the sun was already getting to the corpses and speeding the rotting process.
Tatami is meant to simulate a human wrist, IIRC. Not an arm. No a leg. Not any large bone or tendon. And certainly not the combination of bone and tendon. A wrist is just tendons, muscles, and small bones with little anchor point so slicing through them isn't an issue. Do I agree that instant INCAPACITATING damage can be done to a wrist? Yes. DO I believe that instant incapacititating damage can be done to, say, the biceps region where the cutting in the video took place? Certainly not. The cut would obviously do some heavy duty muscle damage and might cause the opponent to seek medical help soon to stop the bleeding, but I'd think that a cut to this region would not be enough to stop a fighter in the adreneline frenzy that comes with combat. Unless the arm is skewered on the tip and is literally unable to move, then he still has the capcity to kill. Well, you culd try severing the arm, but that takes a bit of power.
The human body is remarkable, I wouldn't be so quick to think that it can be renderred instantly useless by a muscle (and possibly tendon, if a proper cut is executed) wound.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2007 5:13:58 GMT
many of the cuts to which I am referring are double(or more) mats with bamboo cores. Also, even a cut that doesn't completely sever an arm(say at middle-upper arm level) could still render the limb limp and useless.
Really though, we'll never know for sure how much it takes to stop a human body with a sword, unless you want to fight me with live weapons that is.
|
|
|
Post by Lancelot Chan on Apr 21, 2007 6:03:58 GMT
To give another example of sword hitting unarmored flesh and bone, I put up a video of my test cut where I used the brescia spadona against a big head, hitting the area full of bone with a moderate, well controlled strike. If one consider the amount of bone it has gone through, one would see that flesh takes no force to cut, and bone at the size of arms or legs takes only moderate force to cut through. The length of bone my cut had gone through would take off a thigh already.
I would also like to stress that no matter one's hitting hard or not, it's important to perform an offense that also serve defense purpose. In fact, I think it's the essence in the German longsword that each move serves simultaneous offense and defense, thus I did not mention this in the original post / video. Some may assume that hitting light would not stop the opponent in track even if it hits the target, which could be true if the area that was hit was not of vital aspects. That's why I emphasized on a "well aimed", "refined" shot. Lighter hits only works in instant stoppage on certain areas but allow quick recovery and quick follow up strikes, which also allow one not to give up his defense in doing so. What I didn't mention is that in my fault, I assumed the attacker would have simultaneously defend himself with the strike, like placing the cross guard / forte to close the line of the opponent's attack, or have the tip of the sword ready for a follow up thrust. But turned out it was not universally understood.
Anyway, I agree that full arm strikes have their values and I practice this as well. The video is aimed to remind that rather than trying to force through an established defense by striking hard against the resistance, a bind and wind or hitting somewhere else would be a wiser choice perhaps. Beating the opponent's blade from the side where it wasn't well resisting, like from the "inside", would work very well too.
|
|