Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 9th March 2009, 03:39 PM

[QUOTE=celtan]5 minutes of physical combat can leave you utterly devastated, specially when the muscle's "oxygen debt" manifests itself...

The sword thrust is far more lethal than the slash, since a sword's point concentrates an incredible amount of energy, being able to slip through the ribs or even pierce flat bones. The slash is an incredibly effective psychological weapon, since its effects are ghastly and destroy survivor's morale.

M[/QUOTE

Most interesting perspective, Manuel, and I hadn't thought of those aspects, which are extremely well placed. The controversy over which was more effective, the cut vs. the thrust, carried through the entire 19th century, and ironically by the time the M1908 British and American M1913 huge bowlguard swords were introduced, the sword itself was essentially obsolete.

There was some intriguing study written by J.Christoph Amberger in his "Secret History of the Sword" concerning the medical aspects of sword combat, which despite sounding gruesome, was actually compelling when read objectively. There were some other similar studies done concerning the nature of warfare injuries revealed in archaeological discoveries that pertained mostly to Anglo-Saxon and Norse studies if I recall.

All best regards,
Jim

9th March 2009, 03:39 PM	#15
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,738	[QUOTE=celtan]5 minutes of physical combat can leave you utterly devastated, specially when the muscle's "oxygen debt" manifests itself... The sword thrust is far more lethal than the slash, since a sword's point concentrates an incredible amount of energy, being able to slip through the ribs or even pierce flat bones. The slash is an incredibly effective psychological weapon, since its effects are ghastly and destroy survivor's morale. M[/QUOTE Most interesting perspective, Manuel, and I hadn't thought of those aspects, which are extremely well placed. The controversy over which was more effective, the cut vs. the thrust, carried through the entire 19th century, and ironically by the time the M1908 British and American M1913 huge bowlguard swords were introduced, the sword itself was essentially obsolete. There was some intriguing study written by J.Christoph Amberger in his "Secret History of the Sword" concerning the medical aspects of sword combat, which despite sounding gruesome, was actually compelling when read objectively. There were some other similar studies done concerning the nature of warfare injuries revealed in archaeological discoveries that pertained mostly to Anglo-Saxon and Norse studies if I recall. All best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 9th March 2009 at 04:01 PM.