|
|
Post by WestRider on Nov 22, 2012 14:58:24 GMT -5
www.realfighting.com/content.php?id=75An interesting read. Goes through historic accounts of duels and more modern accounts of victims of attacks by edged weapons to look at what the actual results of various injuries are likely to be. As a general thing, far less incapacitating than movies typically make them out to be. Good reference for writing fight scenes, and just sort of generally cool, in a morbid way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Nov 22, 2012 15:54:03 GMT -5
Human beings are incredibly tough.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheminhaler on Nov 22, 2012 18:36:36 GMT -5
Although if they were using longswords the injury would have been far more grievous. Stabbing wounds are sometimes survivable.. if you're lucky. Hacking bits of people.. no way..
Obviously rapiers had been refined over time and replaced longswords as civilian weapons over the course of time. And they were more gentlemanly weapons.15th century they still duelled with messers and longswords in Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Nov 22, 2012 18:39:26 GMT -5
Although if they were using longswords the injury would have been far more grievous. Stabbing wounds are sometimes survivable.. if you're lucky. Hacking bits of people.. no way.. Obviously rapiers had been refined over time and replaced longswords as civilian weapons over the course of time. And they were more gentlemanly weapons.15th century they still duelled with messers and longswords in Europe. Actually, slashing weapons have an even lower low lethality. It's pretty hard to reliably dismember someone - or even properly sever a dense muscle group - with any kind of edged weapon. The kind of really hideous, disemboweling wounds you see on early modern and modern battlefields are a result of one thing, and one thing only. The king of edged weaponry. Shrapnel. |
|
|
|
Post by cheminhaler on Nov 22, 2012 18:51:47 GMT -5
Slashing weapons get negated by armour pretty much completely, but if you're unarmoured and get caught out with a strong longsword hack you're going to be incapacitated at the very least.
I recall that for armoured duels with swords grappling and half-swording techniques are preferable to just hacking at your opponent. The objective is just to overpower the opponent and force your blade into a less protected area between armour joints.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adkenpachi on Nov 22, 2012 19:20:46 GMT -5
Slashing weapons get negated by armour pretty much completely, but if you're unarmoured and get caught out with a strong longsword hack you're going to be incapacitated at the very least. I recall that for armoured duels with swords grappling and half-swording techniques are preferable to just hacking at your opponent. The objective is just to overpower the opponent and force your blade into a less protected area between armour joints. Which is why in armoured combat maces were so popular, especially spiked hammer style maces to dent the enemies helmet INTO their skull. |
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Nov 23, 2012 4:26:05 GMT -5
Slashing weapons get negated by armour pretty much completely, but if you're unarmoured and get caught out with a strong longsword hack you're going to be incapacitated at the very least. Well, rather my point was, no, you're not. A good two-handed cut might well do the job, or a one-handed cut from horseback, but most of the time it will not produce catastrophic dismemberment. |
|
|
|
Post by cheminhaler on Nov 23, 2012 14:33:21 GMT -5
Well yes, that's true, but if I've heard other people say that bad cutting is down to bad technique or other factors (like the sword not being razor sharp, for example). If I remember correctly the blade has to strike at 90 degrees from the area you're cutting. Here is a short test cutting video. It's so cool having gone to school with someone who became a sword maestro.. ; Adkenpachi - too right. Bludgeoning weapons are the best for taking down heavily armoured opponents. |
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Nov 23, 2012 15:53:20 GMT -5
Well yes, that's true, but if I've heard other people say that bad cutting is down to bad technique or other factors (like the sword not being razor sharp, for example). If I remember correctly the blade has to strike at 90 degrees from the area you're cutting. Here is a short test cutting video. It's so cool having gone to school with someone who became a sword maestro.. ; Precisely my point: While ANY blow is capable of inflicting grotesque damage against a stationary target that's making no effort to defend itself (much as infantry always display spectacular accuracy on the firing range), getting an ideal blow under combat situations is pretty much impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by WestRider on Nov 23, 2012 16:23:47 GMT -5
Not to mention the difficulty in keeping a sword "razor sharp" while it's being hit by other swords, bits of armour, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheminhaler on Nov 23, 2012 16:33:29 GMT -5
I completely understand what you're both saying; in fact, I'm in full agreement. Human beings are very tough and fighting real life duels is an intense endeavour but the point I was trying to make (originally, anyway  ) is that over time duels became less deadly. Whether this was down to 'formalisation' of duelling practises (like duel to first blood) or a change of equipment (maybe to lighter types of blade), it still shows society becoming slightly more civilised. |
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Nov 23, 2012 16:35:30 GMT -5
Well yes, that's true, but if I've heard other people say that bad cutting is down to bad technique or other factors (like the sword not being razor sharp, for example). If I remember correctly the blade has to strike at 90 degrees from the area you're cutting. Here is a short test cutting video. It's so cool having gone to school with someone who became a sword maestro.. ; Precisely my point: While ANY blow is capable of inflicting grotesque damage against a stationary target that's making no effort to defend itself (much as infantry always display spectacular accuracy on the firing range), getting an ideal blow under combat situations is pretty much impossible. I disagree. With a well sharpened blade against an unarmored victim I could easily kill him. I have stabbed people in the past and it takes almost zero effort with a 3" blade to put a man in the hospital. Imagine what I could do with something even the size of a gladius. Horrific to say the least. The human arm can move at over 100 miles an hour. Look at major league baseball players throwing the ball. The human body cannot move at 100 miles an hour. So in effect the body will be standing still versus a well placed cut. My reasoning: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk-EVLyIptswww.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqy95dWUFO8&feature=related |
|
|
|
Post by cheminhaler on Nov 23, 2012 16:57:38 GMT -5
"As the neck encompasses the cervical spine, carotid arteries, trachea, and jugular veins in a relatively small space, a sword-thrust to this area would seem very likely to sever or impale a vital structure and disable an adversary almost immediately. And so it was, during the reign of Louis XIII, for one Bussy D'Ambrose who was run through the throat while acting as a second for the Marquis de Beuvron. The chance of combat, however, is a fickle companion to the duelist, as Sir Hatton Cheek discovered in 1609 in his duel with Sir Thomas Dutton. Each, armed with rapier and dagger, met the other on the sands of Calais. On the first pass Cheek directed a dagger thrust to Dutton's throat, close to the trachea, and ran him through. One may imagine with what surprise Cheek found that the wound proved to be entirely ineffective.
In fact, despite the seemingly serious nature of his injury, it was Dutton who concluded the combat by running Cheek through the body with his rapier, and then stabbing him in the back with his dagger. If we are surprised at Dutton's ability to continue the combat, it is with horror that we find that Cheek, after having been so grievously wounded, not only failed to drop to the ground, but continued on with the combat, gathering enough strength to rush yet again upon his adversary. The conflict continued until Dutton, noticing that Cheek began to droop on account of massive blood loss, wisely adopted a defensive strategy, keeping his distance until Cheek finally collapsed from loss of blood.
"
- from Westrider's article.
This duel shows that just sometimes stabbing someone in the neck just isn't enough to finish the fight. One guy thought the fight was over too early, basically, because he thought the other was grievously injured.
|
|
) is that over time duels became less deadly.
