The effectiveness of swords.

[Patch]

Here are several questions that I think it is worth thinking on.

If your target is not covered in armour then…
Can you can leave a scar on the bones of their limbs with a chop from the wrist alone?
Can you cut a roast to the bone with a cleaver and a wrist shot?
Can you slice through their clothing and meat to the bone with a push or draw cut with a sword?
Can you cut a raw leg of lamb to the bone with a kitchen knife?
Is a cut to the bone a significant injury? Would it end the fight? If not how effectively would you fight from that point?
Do you need a full arm swing to chop a persons meat enough to do a significant injury?
Do you need a full arm swing to cut a persons belly?
Do you need a full arm swing to cut a persons belly all the way through the spine?
Do you need to cut a limb off in order to end a fight?
How much pressure does it take to push a sword into someone?
How deep do you need to puncture a persons belly before it is an injury that would normally end a fight?
If you require a full arm swing with a sword to hurt a person, how can a pocket knife ever cause damage?

Illusions can exist and be just as common about how tough a person is as the opposite.
NAAMA fighting assumes an un-armoured opponent, it does not actually call for bad technique.
Of course bad technique happens, but most people find it is by bad fighters. It is hard to blame a person for not being better when we are all striving to be our best.

[Patch]

I know a lot of people will talk with scorn and derision about other peoples styles, from many different camps including the ones that I am (mostly) at. While I think that many of them are fools for doing so I think it is important to give other peoples styles a chance at respect.
Having spent many years fighting at NAAMA events (as well as SCA and others but I am really talking NAAMA here) I have certainly noticed that sometimes a person will land a blow that is truly inconsequential. On the field these are usually, but not always ignored, it depends on the circumstances. Fighters with honour will of course communicate when they feel their shot was inadequate, and this does actually happen all the time. When you think about it there is no prise for winning in NAAMA except more fighting, and not much point in not just getting on with the fighting.
I have also noticed that juniors are often confused at the difference between a good blow delivered with control and a poor blow that does no more than tug at their sleeve. Experience and training teaches us how to tell the good from the bad. The top fighters can perfectly well tell the difference.

I certainly respect the WMA stuff I have seen, I have several videos of awe inspiring techniques that give a real glow when you manage to pull them off on the field. I have read and practiced techniques, moves, and principals from historical texts, some of which have become staples of my personal style.
I think that the SCA have a phenomenal clubbing style, brutal, practical and effective. The principals of which translate beautifully into hammer and mace work.
I think that the jousting and horseback fighting I have seen is incredible, especially given the natural temperament of a horse seems more akin to a overgrown bunny than to a tiger.
I admire the savagery, techniques and resilience of the various armour styles I have looked at, a fabulous way of fighting and well worth pursuing.
I even like, and am happy to poach concepts from Asian, Malaysian, street, and stylised forms. Some things I find work and others are built on paradigms that don’t translate very well but, and here’s my point; in my experience and in many ways ALL are worthy of respect.
-Patch.

[Oskar der Drachen]

[quote]I even like, and am happy to poach concepts from Asian, Malaysian, street, and stylised forms. Some things I find work and others are built on paradigms that don’t translate very well but, and here’s my point; in my experience and in many ways ALL are worthy of respect.
-Patch.

[Patch]

“Fighting style, weapons and armor all influence each other, they exist in symbiotic relationships that flow with the developments in each of the three corners. It was a point I made earlier. The fighting style of a re-enactment group changes with the culture of weapons and armor that is adopted over time.”

Yep sure, I totally agree.

“you have to define your questions along a narrower path. If you are talking about the effectiveness of a "sword" what on earth do you mean by that?”

The questions are questions.

I posted them to pose them as questions

I wanted to let people think them through and maybe challenge in their head some slightly bizarre assumptions I have noticed floating about.

I have some fairly good ideas about how I think that they might be answered and I am really interested in other peoples ideas.

I totally appreciate that different sword types act differently. Assume a nice sharp blade with a flattish profile, a halfway decent tip, here this is a pic of the sword I most commonly fight with at the moment. Work with this if you wish.

“Am I being pendantic? Please tell me and Ill nip it in the bud.”

Heh, no that’s great, share! That’s what opinions and knowledge are for.

[Colin]

Cutting with a sword is a skill, and relies on good technique. A dark age onwards type sword is fairly long (as compared to a dagger or knife), and as a result the blade flexes. To cut with a sword you need to retain its sharp edge in a single line. To thrust with a sword you need to align the flex along the trajectory of that flex. The longer the sword, the more this problem compounds.

This is not true for (typical) daggers or knives which have far more rigid blades (due to length). A sharp eating knife can easily penetrate 20 layers of cloth, whereas an arming sword takes a lot more skill (and yes, I have tested both).

Essentially I'm referring to blade harmonics. While the centre of percussion (or sweet-spot) on a sword remains still (presuming you have a sword made by someone who knows how to make swords correctly), this is only a very small area of the sword. If you want the sword to physically cut, you must not have significant sine waves occurring along the length of the sword.

So to answer most of your questions it requires correct technique, technique and strangely technique. The way most people "cut" with a sword that I've witnessed, they'd have difficulty parting a single layer of cloth. This is why I have a lot of amusement with so called sword experts when they try to cut something, and it doesn't cut at all.

BTW, with a thrust it takes 3lbs of pressure for a sharp epee to enter the human body. Classical fencing requires an appropriate bend of foils/epee before counting as a point.

[Patch]

Yep Colin, great points, practice and technique makes all the difference in the world.

I am very much aware how easy it is to push a sharp through a person. Although admittedly not via direct experience.

So if we may imagine that you were doing the cutting, then how would you answer the list of questions?

[Colin]

Answering from my own knowledge of test cutting and experiences, and is no way reflective of the average person trying to do the same. The answers are also probably unwelcome.

"If your target is not covered in armour then…
Can you can leave a scar on the bones of their limbs with a chop from the wrist alone?"

Yes, I could. I have already demonstrated how to do wrist cuts in the description of Achilles Mazorro which have a different mechanic to what most people consider wrist cuts (hint there's something else in play apart from just the wrist or sword).

"Can you cut a roast to the bone with a cleaver and a wrist shot?"

Yes, see above.

"Can you slice through their clothing and meat to the bone with a push or draw cut with a sword?"

Depends on where. Where the bones are near-ish the surface, like the arms, yes. They're part of the schnitt techniques in blossfechten.

"Can you cut a raw leg of lamb to the bone with a kitchen knife?"

With a draw cut.

"(1)Is a cut to the bone a significant injury? (2)Would it end the fight? (3)If not how effectively would you fight from that point?"

(1) Usually. I've had a knife slice to my knuckle before, and while messy (lots of blood) it didn't disable me in the slightest. I still carry the scar.
(2) Depends on where it hit, and whether it disabled. Certainly shock will usually be a problem.
(3) See (2)

"Do you need a full arm swing to chop a persons meat enough to do a significant injury?"

Depends on the target. There are three divisions of cuts in the Bolognese school; wrist, elbow and shoulder. All depends on the proportion needed.

"Do you need a full arm swing to cut a persons belly?"

No, but again comes down to skill.

"Do you need a full arm swing to cut a persons belly all the way through the spine?"

Possibly. A hard one to answer at this point in time. I may try to simulate this one day with the tatsumi mats and a dowel in the middle. Of course people will probably argue the simulation is flawed

"Do you need to cut a limb off in order to end a fight?"

Potentially so. Silver argues that a cut is more likely to end a fight than a thrust, but a perfect fight needs both.

"How much pressure does it take to push a sword into someone?"

Already answered with the epee.

"How deep do you need to puncture a persons belly before it is an injury that would normally end a fight? "

Depends on where it hit, and what damage it did. It probably would not end a fight straight away. The only thing that stops a fight instantly is taking out the motor functions of the brain.

"If you require a full arm swing with a sword to hurt a person, how can a pocket knife ever cause damage?"

Most people don't know how to use a sword.

"Illusions can exist and be just as common about how tough a person is as the opposite.
NAAMA fighting assumes an un-armoured opponent, it does not actually call for bad technique.
Of course bad technique happens, but most people find it is by bad fighters. It is hard to blame a person for not being better when we are all striving to be our best."

I'm not trying to change NAAMA, but most techniques I've ever witnessed are worthless in an actual fight. It might be classified as fighting, but it sure isn't fencing. Unfortunately the foundation from which most styles (all?) of NAAMA descend were never from an actual fencing system, but an attempt for an unified system for actors in the 20th century for theatre.* From a fencing perspective it is horribly flawed, but hey, if you enjoy doing it, so be it. I'm not trying to be the grinch.

* It is the same system that Bob Anderson taught to the hero actors of the LoTR triology. I can dig up the authors of said system if people are really curious. The books are in the Auckland Public library (cannot speak for other public libraries).

[Patch]

Thanks Colin, thats an interesting perspective, extra worthy in that it comes from a direction that is fairly opposed to the kind of combat I do. By and large I agree with your views and experiences.

I have found that my style has developed in a way that I advocate using the speed and strength combinations from the elbow more than wrist or whole arm. This suffices to lay acceptably hard shots in the SCA traditions and yet is still exceptionally quick for NAAMA fighting.

I find that whole arm shots are excellent if you have bound your opponents weapon or otherwise rendered them incapable of taking advantage of the slowness of the strike, at least that has been my experience, but they are only marginally harder hitting.

Yes shock is a big question, bullets only make finger sized holes after all, (yes ok putting aside hydrostatic energy transfer to the surrounding tissue and caliber size you pendantists!) shock, blood loss, and muscle and tendon severance are all worthy areas of interest. I am fairly sure that if I personally had my bicep severed to the bone (just to pick a common example, and presuming I was not dropped from shock) I would be keen to flee the fight and get it seen to.

I certainly appreciate the difference between fencing and fighting. Sometime I might like to try some historical fencing, the example stuff I have seen online looks interesting.
Cheers, Patch.

[Colin]

I'm surprised it didn't cause more controversy, but then this has only been the first response

[Oskar der Drachen]

Another perspective anyone?

The theory behind an "effective" SCA hit is to cause a wound that is incapacitating enough to follow with a killing strike. So the first hit is to incapacitate, though I prefer a "kill" and target areas where that would be achieved.

The "notch" or join between shoulder and neck. Lots of good arteries there, and the shape of the area is hard to armor, and tends to focus a blow.

Face for obvious reasons, and the reason why I'm wary of trying steel combat. I'm trained to target your face by instinct.

Artery areas, inside the top of the leg especially.

[Patch]

Oh yes, those are all great places to target for extremely effective wounds.
In point of fact when we are sparring (NAAMA) we chose to specifically avoid the vulnerable spots for obvious reasons.
It took me some time to “train in” to fighting SCA heavy style, but it is perfectly doable. Even harder the other way around but it is like using your mouse in your wrong hand or changing from one type of shooter game to another, you pick it up quickly after an initial very awkward period where you have to go painfully slowly and carefully.
I had to be quite careful about hitting with the end of my sword in SCA. Not a thrust but a chop with the last bit of the weapon. It is not considered polite to hit people with the very end of your rattan as it tends to have much less surface area then just a bit down the shaft.
And then I spent a least a full training session hitting people way too hard as I was on a blanket “full speed” setting.

[Colin]

[Oskar der Drachen]

Indeed, "way too hard" is the principle difference between real and re-enactment combat.

In a real combat situation, there isn't really such a thing. Barring conditions where it would damage your weapons, or put you at a tactical disadvantage that is.

I at times have had a reputation for "too hard" in SCA combat. It's not an intent thing, it's just that I'm a very big strong person, who is exceptionally quick into the bargain. Just part of the package as it were. I'm a good weapons platform...

That's not to say I'm thuggish and don't practice accuracy, I can plant a faceplate with a nine foot spear, from nine feet away. To the chagrin of more than one person who thought themselves out of range I might add.

It's the "way too hard" factor when you deal with re-enactment combat, sword effectiveness becomes more one of accuracy than power. Geometry instead of Physics if you like.

[Anna Cruse]

Thank Gods for that! And here I was thinking a P-crazed nut with a sword could be dangerous, when obviously it really takes a lifetime of training and dedicated study of the masters to inflict terrible and potentially fatal wounds that could cause a victim to stop wanting to be there.

We should get all those cases where someone has been charged with such instantly reviewed and revoked - obviously, their victims fell into combine harvesters, and just lied about it.

Speaking of which, if someone DOES happen to fall or trip over an inconveniently placed sword and cuts themselves to ribbons, does that make them or the Gods the master sword wielder?

Two more questions (that will probably require a new topic each):
1) what makes the informed (for the sake of argument) beliefs of one person who writes a book more worthy than the informed beliefs of another who doesn't?
2) what is the definition of Medieval fighting, when the only thing that differentiates it from any other kind of fighting is the time and space where it happened, period tools and beliefs like Jehova was waiting to judge the loser? Do we have to have the period, geography, beliefs or even the tools to be doing it? Try not to give a pat unconsidered answer. Some of us don't believe the Bible...

Anna

[Colin]