From duel to fencing

[VELISARIOS]

Yes Mark but maybe this cuts did from axe. Yes Allan, almost all swords had edges and offcourse they are use and for cuts but the thrust are more easyest to do as Mark said than a cutting manouver in battlefield especially in armies who fight in phalanx. The space they had to fight is to small because they had to protect their side ally at right and at left and do not loss the line.The attack of thrust is the final move (not allways). I dissagre with you. Ancient Greeks (Macedonian phalanx) point their sarisas to the head of their oponent.
The Spartans when their spears were broke they thrust their oponent with their swords to the head of Persians.Atheneans do the same.(Hrododos history) Byzantines do the same when they fought. They did not keep alive the enemy they try to kill him instantly.
We have many texts and examples from historians that hurt warriors change the rout of the battlefield. One example is from 2 Hospitaliers knights who defend the gate of a fort at Malta when the Turks try to conquer the fort. They were both hurt and finally killed from the Turks. When the Hospitaliers win the Turks and went there they see their brothers and admire them for their braveness. They were hurt but they attack like lions.
We have other example from the battle of Marathon. APersian cut the hand of an Athenean hoplite but he continues fight with his sword at hand.And many others examples. The hurt warrior is always a threat.
The warriors try to finish their oponent quickly and the most effectie attack is the thrust (call it spear, sword, dagger) you finish the oponent at once.Who can fight if his belly is open.

I agree with what Allan have said about rapier.

Yes the sabre used not only from horseback. But the common use was for horsmen and cavarly.
Sorry about 'crush' my mistake. I meant destroy their enemies with might cuts from the horsbacks...

I do not use George as 18th century information. I use his example to say that this great swordman has other opinion about rapiers than the other swordmans in Europe. From his book we can see that he dislikes this weapon.

Because we have confused a little a bit. We will discuss the superiority of cuts over thrusts and vice versa?
Many people learned to fight with a type of sword. For example Greeks warriors of 18th and 19th century fight against Turks with curved edged swords like scimitars this sword called hatzara(χατζάρα). Yes, the thrust technics were useless for them. From the other hand if we travel to Spain you 'll see the Spanish swordmens with small swords and rapiers which study their Hispanic style 'Destreza'. The majoryty of their attacks were thrusts and some cuts. If we travel to Germany we will see that the majority of their technicks were cuts, if we go to Italy we see that the majority of attacks were thrusts from many Italian styles (Florentian etc). So depents n what style they use to fight.

Agreed about Asian do not confuse more. I just said about the Asians because the author of the article you have post he speak about them. And he has lots wrongs.

[AllenJ]

Thanks for your response-
A note about ancient Greeks and Macedonians, ect...
Remember that at this point in time, swords were rarely longer than a foot or two. You will not get much power in the way of strong cuts as with a 4 foot late medieval longsword. With shorter, wider weapons like they had aincently, the thrust was more effective for that weapon type.

Injured fighters
The problem with some of these accounts is that we really dont know how bad the injuries were. And of course there is always the dilema of how much of it was blown up by storytelling and legend. Most of the manuals tell that a stout blow or thrust pretty much anywhere will stop your opponent. However they do also make it clear that you should fly clear and stay outside your injured opponents range until you are sure. You are right in saying that an injured fighter is still dangerous. We only really hear about the remarkable stories of a few fighters going on to do heroic deeds after being injured. I feel that these are the exceptions rather than the rule. Why bother recording it and making note of it unless it was noteworthy? Anyone who has been whipped on the off hand in sport saber knows that just a little hit from that can cause a lot of pain and make them stop in thier tracks. Just think of a sharp blade with more power, mass and speed behind it!

[VELISARIOS]

Good.

[Inquartata]

Short weapons can still develop a lot of percussive force. The kopis or machaira, the modern machete, the kukhri, the medieval falchion, etc.

The human body can do some amazing things, but its job is made easier when damage to it is not horribly visible to counteract the adrenaline. For every case that Velisarious states of cut wounds being shrugged off, there are dozens of thrusts being ineffectual man-stoppers. The anecdotes of the duelling era are replete with men run through multiple times who kept on fighting...and often survived the duel ( only to succumb to gangrene and infections in many cases, but still ). A thrust yield a little wound, a cut makes a ghastly one. And blood loss is apt to be greater with a shearing wound than with a pinking. Such things have their effects psychologically.

There's a fight in one of the Norse sagas in which one antagonist takes off his opponent's leg with a blow ( sword, not axe ). His remark is "That's right, no need to look; the leg is off". Whereupon the fellow collapses.

[RoninX]

There's a fight in one of the Norse sagas in which one antagonist takes off his opponent's leg with a blow ( sword, not axe ). His remark is "That's right, no need to look; the leg is off". Whereupon the fellow collapses.

And of course Norse Sagas are known for their strict adherence to "just the facts" I get your "point" though.

<ugh... too much time spent looking at terrible puns today>

[Inquartata]

Insofar as any story from history can be taken as factual, the Icelandic sagas are pretty reliable. Not like some of the medieval Christian tales with miracles every third page.

The main question over the sagas is: Since they were written down by Christians, might they have been slanted in order to make the old pagan religion look quaint and faintly ridiculous? That objection doesn't apply to details of common life and custom, however.

It's always possible that there's been exaggeration in the centuries between the time of a story and the time it was finally recorded, of course. An evergreen danger, that.

[AllenJ]

The good thing about the Viking Sagas is that we CAN test things to see if they hold up in the real world. Anyone who has trained with an accuratley reproduced sword can see that cutting a leg off is not that miraculous of a feat. It's something that is accounted for in many other texts in many other places. Thus that particular part can be counted as more valid.

I agree that shorter weapons "can" produce concussive force- but just not as well as bigger ones. Its just simple physics. That and the fact that there is a big difference in the properties an the capabilities between say a medieval falchion and a kopis.

[Inquartata]

Yes, the kopis is more akin to the kukhri, with which latter some pretty astonishing things have been done. The falchion and the machete are themselves much alike in form, though the former was typically much larger and heavier. ( You know all this, of course, but not everyone does. )

My point was that it isn't about length alone ( er, I am talking about swords! ), but about weight and balance as well.

Which is better suited to chopping, a ( short ) meat cleaver or a ( long ) poniard? A ( short ) gladius or a ( long ) rapier?

[AllenJ]

Which is better suited to chopping, a ( short ) meat cleaver or a ( long ) poniard? A ( short ) gladius or a ( long ) rapier?

Exactly! Different weapons do different things better than others. A rapier is almost useless in the chop or strong cuts. Whereas the falchion excells. (however there are some falchions that have a very nasty point that would do a tremendous amount of damage- far more than a rapier)
http://www.myarmoury.com/review_mrl_falc.html
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/...l-falchion.htm

[VELISARIOS]

Exactly! Different weapons do different things better than others. A rapier is almost useless in the chop or strong cuts. Whereas the falchion excells. (however there are some falchions that have a very nasty point that would do a tremendous amount of damage- far more than a rapier)
http://www.myarmoury.com/review_mrl_falc.html
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/...l-falchion.htm

I agree.

[VELISARIOS]

Short weapons can still develop a lot of percussive force. The kopis or machaira, the modern machete, the kukhri, the medieval falchion, etc.

The human body can do some amazing things, but its job is made easier when damage to it is not horribly visible to counteract the adrenaline. For every case that Velisarious states of cut wounds being shrugged off, there are dozens of thrusts being ineffectual man-stoppers. The anecdotes of the duelling era are replete with men run through multiple times who kept on fighting...and often survived the duel ( only to succumb to gangrene and infections in many cases, but still ). A thrust yield a little wound, a cut makes a ghastly one. And blood loss is apt to be greater with a shearing wound than with a pinking. Such things have their effects psychologically.

There's a fight in one of the Norse sagas in which one antagonist takes off his opponent's leg with a blow ( sword, not axe ). His remark is "That's right, no need to look; the leg is off". Whereupon the fellow collapses.

I dissagre with your thoughts. Offcourse cuts are strong attacks, offcourse spmeone can bleed with them but the cuttiing attacks destroy the mushles. The thrust weapons such as knives, daggers, spears,swords etc destroy the organs and they can do immidiade death or make the body in the 'sock' contition as doctors saids.
I agree about the amound of bleeding. If someone thrust one in his hand he has liitle loss than the cut, but most thrust points at head, chest and belly so in head you have immidiate death, in chest he is dead again and at belly the victim is incapasitated.

The sagas is just epic stories of the brave Nors warriors as the Arthurian legends, there are not proofs.
I add this. It is the words of the American trainer in special forces (seals) he said the following:
'My parents always said that I must be proud for my ascentors. There were Norsemen and they fought with their broad swords and for their bravery. But when I start to read history and learn martial arts I see that a short, dark hair folk with a small sword at hand which use it for piersing and thrusting their enemies,they conquer all the known world. And I speak about Romans.' After that he said about how effective are the thrust attacks.

[Teme]

But when I start to read history and learn martial arts I see that a short, dark hair folk with a small sword at hand which use it for piersing and thrusting their enemies,they conquer all the known world.

Then why did they use meat cleaver par exellence, gladius? Much better suited at cutting than thrusting (doens't mean is't no good at trusting, though).

[AllenJ]

There are a few generalizations there. Thrusts to the limbs with something like a rapier has certainly less stopping power than than cuts to the limbs. But I'd certainly say that a cut to the head or torso has just as much stopping power as a thrust to the head or torso. There are just as many stories of people recovering from thrusts to the torso than not.
Also remember that many weapons are very capable of both. A 15th century longsword like this:http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/...hoffer-xva.htm was certainly very effective at both the cut and the thrust. Neither one is superior to the other. As George Silver said, the true fight MUST use both. As stated before one may often set up another. A strong cut to the leg may not instantly kill someone but it will certianly make them react enough for you to set up a strike to the head or thrust to a more vulnerable spot. Which is more important? Neither.

I disagree and state again that the Norse sagas CAN be valuable tools for historical fencing. In history there are NEVER any proofs- just educated guesses based off information. The norsemen did use both the cut and the thrust. Moreso the cut. We know this because we have thier weapons, and forensic evidence from gravesites. From these and the accounts in the sagas, we know that cutting off a leg certainly is in a realm of reality.

I'd also be VERY hesitant in stating that the Roman empire was won because of the thrust. To imply that something that massive was accoplished by simply poking is just lacking.

[Inquartata]

One word: Adrianople.

It was Roman organization and discipline that won them an empire, not the shape of their swords. When the organization and discipline went, the gladius could not save them.

Very few organs can be so damaged by a thrust that they kill immediately. I remember reading an account of a man who was found dead in his bathroom, with a stab wound to the heart. The first detective on the scene thought he had a "locked room" murder: the bathroom door was bolted from the inside, the one window latched and painted shut. A more experienced detective had the neighborhood canvassed and found that the night before the man had been in a fight at a local bar. He had the first detective run from the bar to the man's apartment building, up a flight of stairs and to the bathroom. At a dead run it took over 3 minutes. At a slower pace it would have taken longer, but even three minutes is a VERY long time in a barfight. The man had had his heart all but destroyed, and it took him over three minutes of strenuous physical activity to die.

This sort of thing isn't uncommon. Have you ever read the article "The Dubious Quick Kill"?

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php

and

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php

[Teme]

I just wonder that if thrust has any clear advantage over cut, why every military held so long to cutting ability? Considering the significance of 'neutralizing' the enemy combatants to the file and rank, one would think that cut has had some preference in this regard...

Whereas, so I'm told, the pistol became preferred duelling weapon precisely because it caused less fatal wounds than sword (at the time), indicating that in civilian use a non-fatal, perhaps even non-incapacitating, result was preferred.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Norse

Norse.... the male version of nurse.

[RITFencing]

Norse.... the male version of nurse.

Wrong thread; you want alternative definition.

[VELISARIOS]

Then why did they use meat cleaver par exellence, gladius? Much better suited at cutting than thrusting (doens't mean is't no good at trusting, though).

No comments.

[VELISARIOS]

There are a few generalizations there. Thrusts to the limbs with something like a rapier has certainly less stopping power than than cuts to the limbs. But I'd certainly say that a cut to the head or torso has just as much stopping power as a thrust to the head or torso. There are just as many stories of people recovering from thrusts to the torso than not.
Also remember that many weapons are very capable of both. A 15th century longsword like this:http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/...hoffer-xva.htm was certainly very effective at both the cut and the thrust. Neither one is superior to the other. As George Silver said, the true fight MUST use both. As stated before one may often set up another. A strong cut to the leg may not instantly kill someone but it will certianly make them react enough for you to set up a strike to the head or thrust to a more vulnerable spot. Which is more important? Neither.

I disagree and state again that the Norse sagas CAN be valuable tools for historical fencing. In history there are NEVER any proofs- just educated guesses based off information. The norsemen did use both the cut and the thrust. Moreso the cut. We know this because we have thier weapons, and forensic evidence from gravesites. From these and the accounts in the sagas, we know that cutting off a leg certainly is in a realm of reality.

I'd also be VERY hesitant in stating that the Roman empire was won because of the thrust. To imply that something that massive was accoplished by simply poking is just lacking.

I agree.
The true fight is to use all the movements in the correct time.

Romans won because they took the best types of waepons and armorms from the nations they had contact.

[AllenJ]

I respectfully disagree. The Roman weapons and armor changed little during their time in power. I'd state that they won because of superior tactics, training, as well as technology.