|
Post by antoine99 on Jan 23, 2018 3:38:00 GMT
Hey everyone I was just wondering about the severity of injuries from combat either in duels or in battle, where they are actually trying to kill each other, not just win the fight and walk away. I'm no doctor, but I assume if you run someone through the torso with a sword, they are as good as dead. However, will they immediately stop fighting, or would they have the presence of mind and adrenaline to continue fighting even for another few seconds? I've heard of machete fights that got extremely bloody but they kept fighting due to adrenaline (no, I don't plan on looking up those videos). It seems to me that once you have your weapon inside someone's center of mass you are somewhat open for a counterattack even if you withdraw it quickly. Sure you'd kill the person but you might end up dead yourself. Obviously something like decapitation would work right away so I'm not talking about that. I guess slashes to certain areas on the arm to render it useless would be good, but I would think that if they are actively fighting you and constantly moving, hitting that area would be pretty hard. What are your thoughts? Combat would naturally involve armor and make this less of an issue I guess but I'm still wondering. Right now my understanding is that with equal skill, a swordfight is an awful, bloody encounter for both parties. Much like a knife fight on the streets today. Nobody really "wins" that much. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jan 23, 2018 5:46:13 GMT
In historical accounts of duelling, there are instances where people do indeed keel over and die after a single stab, but there are equally as many where the combatant continues fighting seemingly unimpeded after seemingly grievous injury only to die later on.
It is also well documented that one gets his sword stuck in an opponent and is then stabbed in turn.
To avoid 'double kills', i prefer thrusting in opposition to an opponent's weapon. Your withdrawal from a lunge must also be well trained and quick, under cover from your sword. Be especially wary of newer/ poorly trained fighters as they often go straight for a cut or thrust without regard for proper technique and their own safety
Grappling and disarms at close range are also a useful way to prevent your opponent from doing silly things after he has been hit
You spoke of cuts to the arms. This is encouraged in many different historical treatises and its absolutely martially valid if you can execute it safely. It's especially easy to do on newer fighters that do not gauge range properly
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jan 23, 2018 6:05:18 GMT
Oh and just another point regarding injuries in a fight.
Never assume that your attack will incapacitate or kill an opponent. Even after dealing a good cut or thrust, your withdrawal from the engagement must be as if he is 100% combat effective.
For example, i am reasonable sure that i will kill an opponent if i give him a good descending cut in the neck with a longsword, but even if i were to inflict such a blow, i must recover out of distance in a guard position which defends against his afterblow, or i might keep hitting him till he's mincemeat... or i might choose to grapple and take his weapon... throw him... arm lock etc etc
|
|
|
Post by antoine99 on Jan 23, 2018 7:14:49 GMT
Wow, great info, thanks
Weapons can get stuck in opponents after a thrust? That's gruesome. I thought one way in, one way out
|
|
|
Post by RaylonTheDemented on Jan 23, 2018 7:44:23 GMT
Wow, great info, thanks Weapons can get stuck in opponents after a thrust? That's gruesome. I thought one way in, one way out Blade getting wedged between bones/armor pieces, tip sticking in bone, opponent grabbing the blade, opponent twisting and/or sagging around, making your sword try to wrench off your hand will you struggle not to let go comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jan 23, 2018 13:36:13 GMT
Indeed, apart from massive structural damage, like literally losing your head, in reality there's no way to quickly and 100% reliably incapacitate an opponent. Sometimes a perfect hit on a vital organ kills a dude instantly, sometimes next week, sometimes not at all and sometimes an ultimately inconsequential bruise or scratch drops the mofo cold on the spot. We are extremely complicated machines, and break in complicated and unpredictable ways.
Which is exactly why a lot of historical treatises repeatedly tell you to stay in cover (of your weapons) throughout the exchange, to initiate attacks by gaining control of the opponent's weapons instead of just going in swinging, and to always follow up and through even if you think the opponent is finished. And also why a lot of the "plays" or partnered drills presented in them keep going well past ostensibly lethal moves...
|
|
|
Post by Curtis_Louis on Jan 23, 2018 14:24:49 GMT
Interesting topic antoine99. I've been watching a lot of Roland Warzecha's YouTube vids lately. www.youtube.com/user/warzechas/videos In many, he discusses this very topic as well as lots of "historic" examples of sparing. If he is correct with his interpretations, the use and manipulations of the sword and shield are very different from the way things are portrayed on screen. To include the way people walked and foot placement. Ball walkers as opposed to heel walking. Many Viking era grave finds show high levels of leg trauma. I would think a disabling blow to the leg/legs would take the fight out of an opponent quickly. Same for a strike to the hand or sword arm. Also, HEMA acknowledges this, in tournament rules, by allowing for an "after blow", which will deduct one point from the attacking fighter.
|
|
|
Post by bebut on Jan 23, 2018 14:26:26 GMT
In bayonet training they told us to be prepared to put our foot on the guys chest to be able to pull the bayonet out. Probably less of a problem with modern short bayonets than the ww1 versions.
Keep in mind the difference between "killing" and "stopping", and the difference between a "psychological stop" and a physiological stop". If you stab somebody and he decides to stop fighting it is over, even if he is physically capable of fighting, even if he just has 1 minutes worth of blood left. Old classic westerns were big on this, the guy stops fighting but jabbers on for a minute.
In a physiological stop the subject has been rendered incapable of fighting regardless of his mental desires. This is usually caused by central nervous system destruction such as a severed spine high up (m/l instantaneous) or destruction of the heart or major arteries (pretty quick to bleed out). Horrible, disfiguring, ultimately mortal wounds may not stop somebody in the short run, giving them time to injure or kill you.
Stabbing (or shooting) somebody in the torso is always a crap shoot. You do not know exactly what you are going to hit inside that torso. One stab might do it, but 3 might not.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis_Louis on Jan 23, 2018 14:42:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RaylonTheDemented on Jan 23, 2018 14:43:53 GMT
In bayonet training they told us to be prepared to put our foot on the guys chest to be able to pull the bayonet out. Probably less of a problem with modern short bayonets than the ww1 versions... ...Stabbing (or shooting) somebody in the torso is always a crap shoot. You do not know exactly what you are going to hit inside that torso. One stab might do it, but 3 might not. All of this, keeping in mind most of the sensitive organs are protected by the ribcage, lots of bone and cartilage there. Consider most movies where torso stabbing happens, we are shown the blades go in (and out) wihtout resistance, either stabbing or cutting, inflicting mortal wounds to heart or lungs. I am no expert, but a good strike will likely penetrate, as wet, living bone isn't as hard as dry bone, but still it wouldn't be that easy.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jan 23, 2018 14:46:24 GMT
An opponent who can't stand isn't much of a threat. Trauma to the knees and the prominent tendons on the back of the leg/ankle are an excellent way to disable a leg without necessitating something inconsistent like pain compliance. Learning the locations of the major arteries is a good idea as well.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jan 23, 2018 14:54:09 GMT
In bayonet training they told us to be prepared to put our foot on the guys chest to be able to pull the bayonet out. Probably less of a problem with modern short bayonets than the ww1 versions... ...Stabbing (or shooting) somebody in the torso is always a crap shoot. You do not know exactly what you are going to hit inside that torso. One stab might do it, but 3 might not. All of this, keeping in mind most of the sensitive organs are protected by the ribcage, lots of bone and cartilage there. Consider most movies where torso stabbing happens, we are shown the blades go in (and out) wihtout resistance, either stabbing or cutting, inflicting mortal wounds to heart or lungs. I am no expert, but a good strike will likely penetrate, as wet, living bone isn't as hard as dry bone, but still it wouldn't be that easy. Part of the liver and the abdominal aorta are excellent abdominal targets which aren't protected by the ribs. If you are lucky you can perforate the abdominal aorta, liver, and diaphragm with a thrust just below the xiphoid process.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jan 23, 2018 17:52:31 GMT
There are differences over time and place to keep in mind as well. Late-period duels were very different animals from Medieval judicial duels. The former might include a duel to first bloom or a duel where it was not necessary to kill. Judicial duels, in contrast, might REQUIRE a death to prove God's will. Two enter, and a maximum of one leaves. Battlefield combat also shifted and changed over time and within time periods depending on the circumstances. You have things like the Combat of the Thirty where nobody seems to have been too focused on actually killing each other concurrent with absolute slaughterhouses from Golden Spurs to Agincourt.
In less formal encounters, too, you'd find variation. There's an illustration of drunk Swedes fighting with S&B where they all have wounds but nobody is dead. It may be that they were too drunk, or that there was some protocol to try to avoid murder charges. We have references to "rules" against stabbing from Meyer, again suggesting a way of reducing lethality or at least minimizing the chance of being executed afterwards. OTOH we have descriptions of strikes where you are to train to cut with your longsword from the forehead diagonally across and exiting through the chin--a horrific lethal wound. And even the clerics of I.33 were aiming for the gill line or other vital parts of the body. It would depend on circumstances. None of these fights happened in a legal or social vacuum.
The bottom line is any decent sword *can* be used to kill very quickly. If everyone is in armor you simply have to change the way you attack, but we know armor was not a surefire way of keeping death at bay. And we know people trained to make killing strikes even if they weren't intending to kill. Just from my own work, I've noticed that two intermediate fighters can have remarkably long exchanges where we get a lot of minor cuts. But when high level fighters are involved it tends to be over faster and with more prejudice.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jan 23, 2018 19:46:50 GMT
There is no simple answer to your question. To start with forget what you see in the movies. If you are talking about duelling the rules of engagement changed over time and location. In some cases it was to the death, or when one combatant could no longer continue, to first blood, which could be no more than a scratch. Often the combatants would receive multiple wounds only to die hours or days later from blood lose or infection. And then there were the instant kills. War casualties could be different. The medieval medical reports led me to believe the cure was worse than the wound, and personally I would be inclined to say leave me alone and let me die in peace. The medical reports that I’ve read from the Napoleon wars and the drawings show horrible, disfiguring, head wounds on the French created by the cuts from English sabres. While the thrusts from the French swords proved more deadly weren’t as bad to look at.
“Swordsmen of the British Empire”, if you can find a copy, would be your best source for what you ask from about the beginning of the 18th century through the 19th. The book contains 600+ pages of eye witnessed accounts as well as surgeons statements of the effects of combat which include accounts of weapon failures to wounds and death. The book also gives a good insight on how combat was waged, weapons, and armour. The book is most educational and I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by Faldarin on Jan 23, 2018 20:08:57 GMT
I agree with everyone above to the lack of simple answers. Talking from a battlefield standpoint, to stop someone - you would want to pair a damaging thrust theoretically with some kind of physical control, I would guess. Knocking an injured opponent to the ground somehow would likely be a good way to 'end' a fight. With a severe enough injury, it would be difficult (adrenaline or no) to get up. This is opposed to already being on their feet and trying to stay up.
On the other hand - quite a few historical texts prioritize the head and neck, as well as potentially chest shots for skewering someone through the heart to stop a fight immediately.
|
|
|
Post by antoine99 on Jan 23, 2018 20:38:49 GMT
Thanks everyone, lots of amazing (and gruesome) information! Indeed the medical aspect of these times scares me, I think I'd be too scared to even get a wound treated.
Got a cold? Welp let's get that arm off.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jan 23, 2018 22:25:44 GMT
It wasn't actually as bad as that. People who received timely medical attention survived even multiple stab wounds often enough, despite infection, and the thing to note about amputations is that the patients had a marked tendency to live. But, overall, I think it's fair to say that historical martial arts are primarily concerned with ending fights not quickly but safely.
|
|
|
Post by RaylonTheDemented on Jan 23, 2018 22:33:31 GMT
...I think I'd be too scared to even get a wound treated. Got a cold? Welp let's get that arm off. Leeches. Oh you don't feel well, let's me do some bloodletting...
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jan 23, 2018 22:51:03 GMT
It wasn't actually as bad as that. People who received timely medical attention survived even multiple stab wounds often enough, despite infection, and the thing to note about amputations is that the patients had a marked tendency to live. But, overall, I think it's fair to say that historical martial arts are primarily concerned with ending fights not quickly but safely. People have been surprisingly good at treating trauma over the ages. Disease was more of a mixed bag....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 0:50:14 GMT
Spend the money to roll up and soak a few tameshigiri mats, bundle 2 or three in a big roll, and run that through. See what happens when you try to get your sword out. The tatami roll doesn't recoil with anxiety from your attack, double over in pain, or clutch your weapon. It doesn't have a skeletal structure either. It's a big simplification, but can give you an idea of some of the complications you can run into.
Withdrawing from the engagement is one option, another is to dominate the opponent and maintain the pressure. Once the weapon is inserted, use it as a lever to put the target on the ground. There's a difference between a sloppy attack knocking the stand over and a controlled deliberate takedown. From there, stomp or bash / atemi or if you've got a dagger put it to work.
Don't assume it's over, be ready to respond. Respond can mean maintaining the pressure, counterattacking, withdrawing, etc.
|
|