|
Post by bas on Feb 28, 2021 20:14:30 GMT
I am far from an expert in this, but I believe that the general consensus is that a thrust centric weapon is more likely to cause a killing wound than a slashing weapon. Whereas a cutting weapon has a quicker recovery and is less likely to get stuck in your opponent and possibly easier to incapacitate them with?
Multiple layers of clothing (especially silk) act as an effective barrier against cuts while a thrust with a sharp-pointed weapon has an easier time getting through. Of course, the point has to strike a vital target to get an immediate killing blow. People can and did continue to fight on with multiple stab wounds, but this is where the killing wound comes in. What often happened was that fibres from dirty clothing would get carried deep into the body causing potentially fatal infections (this was especially true from bullet wounds).
It was for this reason that duels were often fought bare-chested because of the risk of infection. There is even an account of two noble ladies dueling bare-chested behind closed doors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2021 20:29:18 GMT
I am far from an expert in this, but I believe that the general consensus is that a thrust centric weapon is more likely to cause a killing wound than a slashing weapon. Whereas a cutting weapon has a quicker recovery and is less likely to get stuck in your opponent and possibly easier to incapacitate them with? Multiple layers of clothing (especially silk) act as an effective barrier against cuts while a thrust with a sharp-pointed weapon has an easier time getting through. Of course, the point has to strike a vital target to get an immediate killing blow. People can and did continue to fight on with multiple stab wounds, but this is where the killing wound comes in. What often happened was that fibres from dirty clothing would get carried deep into the body causing potentially fatal infections (this was especially true from bullet wounds). It was for this reason that duels were often fought bare-chested because of the risk of infection. There is even an account of two noble ladies dueling bare-chested behind closed doors. I never knew about the bare chested thing before. I've seen it in art work, but didn't realise it was for that purpose Are spadroons really a thrusting weapon? I have no idea tbh. Everything I hear about them contradicts itself. I imagine the "to the death" type of duel was also an exception to duels, but at the same time, I can also see people dying from them a lot anyway. But people die from modern sports as well, despite the extreme levels of safety we try take on them. I could be way off on this one. It's only a hypothesis, based on questions like "why would they use this design if it was less effective at killing than this other design?". I also base this around the era of sabers, spadroons and small swords, mostly, and in Europe specifically. Most of Europe had an emphasis on gentlemanly ways, and I don't really know enough about other cultures to comment. Japan on the otherhand, seems like it's always had an obsession with death. Sepukku, kamakaze pilots, etc. (I bring up Japan because I find it so culturally the opposite when it comes to war customs). For me, it makes sense to use them and the katana/tachi as an opposing example to war/duel customs in Europe
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Feb 28, 2021 21:36:54 GMT
The subject is too complex for me to cover in this space, nor do I consider myself an expert on the subject. But to take some of the issues above step by step.
Bas correct in his post. Thrusts in general are more deadly than a cut. It was truer in the days swords were used. Doctors had less knowledge of the body eternally plus the lack of infection fighting medicines contribute to this. Today there would be less difference between the mortality and laceration wounds. A laceration would bleed externally and to some effect flush itself. They also knew how to cauterize or otherwise control bleeding. Cauterization also to some extent prevented infections. A penetrating wound, bullet blade or whatever, would drag debris into the body causing infection that were for the most part untreatable, not to mention the lack of control with internal bleeding. Rapiers, small swords and such were deadly, but didn’t necessarily have much stopping power, and the combatants might receive numerous wounds and continue to fight only to die hours later maybe a day later from hemorrhaging to weeks later from infection. So far as cutting through clothing, I was surprised at this when covering my targets with cloth. I was shocked and lost my faith in cutting making me aware of the importance of targeting the unprotected areas for best results. I can’t cut through one rug covering a target. The target being a free standing filled plastic jug. An adversary would weigh more giving more resistance improving the chance of the cut succeeding. I can count on the point going through. I can do the same target with 4 rugs coverage the jug and expect to exit the jug with most of my swords and can do so every time with 3 rug protecting.
The P1796 spadroon often had an excessively flexible blade that made it poor at giving point while too light for good cutting. And unfortunately it is this sword that gave spadroons a bad rep. Easton pointed these faults out in the first video I saw on the subject. During the next two I saw he went from warming up to justifying the P1796. The reason he gave was that it handled much like a small sword that many of the officers at that time were schooled with giving them confidence and making the transition easier.
|
|