Prepper/Survivalist swords
Feb 3, 2013 19:49:54 GMT
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Feb 3, 2013 19:49:54 GMT
gbayes wrote
As far as thrust vs cut/slash weapons, thrusting in generally superior, at least in controlled dueling kinds of circumstances, because it takes a lot less energy to thrust into someone then chop off limbs. This is because the force is concentrated on a small point, the tip rather then across a wider area and you don't have to deal with bone. Also because it is easier to get the weight of your body behind it without overextending yourself if you miss. Penetrating the body cavity and puncturing a major organ is not going to make someone drop dead on the spot, true, but it will take the fight out of them pretty well and they will die soon enough.
in western traditions at least, as the steel got better and more able to build long slim swords that don't snap, the emphasis gradually moved from almost entirely cutting to almost entirely thrusting, to the point where some of the modern fencing weapons don't even use the blade.
As far as thrust vs cut/slash weapons, thrusting in generally superior, at least in controlled dueling kinds of circumstances, because it takes a lot less energy to thrust into someone then chop off limbs. This is because the force is concentrated on a small point, the tip rather then across a wider area and you don't have to deal with bone. Also because it is easier to get the weight of your body behind it without overextending yourself if you miss. Penetrating the body cavity and puncturing a major organ is not going to make someone drop dead on the spot, true, but it will take the fight out of them pretty well and they will die soon enough.
in western traditions at least, as the steel got better and more able to build long slim swords that don't snap, the emphasis gradually moved from almost entirely cutting to almost entirely thrusting, to the point where some of the modern fencing weapons don't even use the blade.
Thrusting isn't superior to cutting. Such a broad statement is useless. It completely depends on the situation if a thrust or a cut is the preferred choice of attack.
If one was to decide on which is "better" in a combat situation, it would actually have to be the cut. Thrusts lack in one MAJOR department: Stopping power. You might run the guy through but he is still perfectly capable of killing you before he dies himself. From a medical perspective, thrusts don't destroy nearly as much tissue as a cut. Thrusts rarely sever arteries or tendons. There are plenty of stories about duels from the 17-18th century where both combatants wound each other mortally because the slim blades they used lacked the ability to efficiently stop a determined attacker "on the spot".
There is even modern data on such happenings. I read an enlightening paper by two British doctors who described situations they experienced. Not only knife stabbing wounds are regularly missed by the victims of (bar) fights, they even had one guy walk into the hospital hours (!) after he had suffered a complete penetration of his abdomen by a cane sword. Granted, that guy was drunk as hell but it goes a long way to show how resilient the human body can be when suffering stab wounds, especially if pumped full of adrenaline or other "drugs".
Cuts on the other hand are much more effective at stopping an attacker in his tracks. It is true that a cut requires more energy to deliver a fatal wound but when it does, it usually does a much quicker job. Not to mention that a cut doesn't need to kill to end a fight.
The use of slim blade for duels stems quite simply from a development of new fighting techniques. It had nothing to do with steel or bladesmithing skills. The fact that slim thrusting blades were considerably less lethal played a role as well. Keep in mind, many duels were only fought to first blood. First and foremost, the duel was considered a manly, honorable way to settle disputes. The death of one or both opponents wasn't a primary goal. An epee or foil is the perfect tool for the job: Fast, elegant (important!!) and considerably less lethal than other swords (it can and did still kill of course!!). There's a reason the foil saw little use in the military! Whenever people actually wanted to kill and there wasn't much armor around, they used weapons at least capable of cuts, but usually actually geared towards the use as a cutting implement.
This is reflected in history. Swords were of the broad and cutter type for most of their history. This changed with the increasing effectiveness of armor during the high and late middle ages. Once armor fell out of fashion in the 16th century, one again sees the use of broad blades with round points (katzbalger, etc). While the early rapiers were decent cutters and employed by both civilians and soldiers, the later development was towards different weapons to use in war and civilian settings. Saber, Pallasch, etc dominated in the military for most of the 17-19th century while civilians used those slim and long blades frequently associated with the time. Only quite too often do people forget that they was more than just one type of bladed weapon in use.