Quote:
Originally Posted by toaster5sqn
My finale point on the cut vs thrust is always the report of an encounter between a French cuirassier and a dragoon of the Scots greys at Waterloo.
They charged each other and the Frenchman gave point and ran the Scotsman through. The Scotsman realizing he had taken a mortal wound rose up in his stirrups and brought his sword down on the Frenchman's head with such violence that both helmet and skull where split asunder. And they both fell dead upon the field!
Here we see equally deadly results from both forms of attack, however if the cut had landed first the Frenchman would have had no reply. Equally the Frenchman was without defence since his attack had left his weapon stuck, if only briefly, in his opponent. And should the cut have landed upon the Frenchman's wrist before his point went home then the Frenchman would have been one of those survivors of the "less deadly" cut that made it to the hospital and lived. But the cut would have been a winning one by any measure of military effectiveness.
The only worthwhile answer to the debate is that cut and thrust both have their place in a swordfight and a swordsman who has recourse to both has more options than one who must rely only upon one or the other.
Robert
|
Hello Robert, Fencing technique was drilled home ...depending on what sort of sword was being taught...To have saved the day for The Sword...what was needed was a decision to use one technique of fencing...blended with an open fighting form where all moves were allowed. Emphasis on how to fight than on how to fence... Both schools missed out fighting and filled up their programmes with Fencing...
Regards,
Peter Hudson.