Hmmm...I am also NOT a violent person, nor crave the bloodier aspects of edged weapons, but I do wish to argue the point of thrust being more deadly than slash. IN GENERAL, I would agree with you in that the sword, especially the rapier or heavy cavalry types used on horseback at full thrust, is mor lethal. BUT a skilled swordsman slashing at vital areas could be just as deadly or more. After all, a thrust to the thigh might be lethal, but a slash would more than likely sever the femoral artery. A thrust to the abdomen might puncture the liver, spleen or kidney, but the slash could disembowel or sever the mesenteric arteries. The thrust could puncture a lung or piece the heart, but the slash could sever the carotid arteries, lacerate the trachea or esophagus (a surprisingly fatal injury), plus it would seem that slashing injuries would be more prone to festering/sepsis/infection. I've been in the medical field for nearly 20 years and have seen my share of traumatic injuries from edged impliments (machetes, swords, switch blades, axes, etc) and can attest that it all comes down to the skill of the attacker. I did not mean to be so gruesome here, so I hope no one takes offense, but I do think this point needs to be made, especially in regards to fighting styles and different cultural forms of sword fighting. After all, nearly the entire samurai sword-fighting system relies on slashing/slicing blows and cuts vs the traditional thrust. I personally wouldn't want to be on the end of either one of them!
