Please help on 1796 HC sword marks

[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

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Norman, you are right, these swords would have been horrendously consuming in actual combat, and the only driving force that enabled these troopers to use them as such was virtually pure adrenalin. The amount of skill in the average troopers swordsmanship was limited, which was what drew the derisive comment from the French, and probably did resemble chopping action. The French cavalry were keen swordsmen, and adamantly preferred the thrust, emphasizing the conflict over that cut vs. thrust over the next century in many European armies.
From what little I recall of fencing (many many moons ago!) working at strengthening various muscle groups was essential before handling a blade, and even with the very light sabre, one was spent quickly in combat.
A great movie was "The Duellists" where the combatants in a heated duel were incredibly evenly matched swordsmen in the French cavalry, and fought until both were so exhausted they could barely left the sabres.It was often said that after combat in an engagement, and intense action, horsemen could be seen just sitting motionless in thier saddles with tears streaming down thier faces, strictly from the anticlimatic release of adrenalin.

Well, I didnt mean to write a book oops,

All the best,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

[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

[celtan]

Hi Jim,

The medical aspects would make a very interesting sub-subject. Since you seem to have given a lot of thought to the subject, would you care to expound on same?

Best

Manolo



[QUOTE=Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by 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

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=celtan]Hi Jim,

The medical aspects would make a very interesting sub-subject. Since you seem to have given a lot of thought to the subject, would you care to expound on same?

Best

Manolo




Hi Manolo,
It really is interesting, though I will confess, it is the least appealing aspect of studying weapons to me. It is of course obvious that swords were intended for a purpose, that is to kill and maim, and the results are not nearly as inspiring as the tradition and romantic aesthetics of the weapon.

I prefer to focus on the more subtle symbolism, history and developmental aspects of weapons, despite acknowledging some of the necessary recognition associated with thier use.

Thank you for your expressed confidence in my perspective though, received as a welcome compliment considering your own profound medical knowledge and its potential application in understanding the use of weapons. My observations would be cursory in comparison, as I've only briefly seen the references I mentioned.

All very best regards,
Jim

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... it is the least appealing aspect of studying weapons to me. It is of course obvious that swords were intended for a purpose, that is to kill and maim, and the results are not nearly as inspiring as the tradition and romantic aesthetics of the weapon.
I prefer to focus on the more subtle symbolism, history and developmental aspects of weapons, despite acknowledging some of the necessary recognition associated with thier use...

Amen.

Fernando.