British Infantry Officers Battle Swords in the 19th C...and up to 1914

[urbanspaceman]

This information came from British surgeons attending the wounded during the Peninsular wars and stated that penetrating punctures could rarely be fully repaired and the patients died, whereas cuts, ever dismembering cuts, could be far more successfully repaired.
The conclusion I came to was if greater attention was given to stabbing then greater death could be achieved.
I have absolutely no idea what sort of weapons we are dealing with here.
ps It was my understanding that bayonets were the main reason why swords became redundant. A Brown Bess with a 20inch bayonet is a formidable weapon, but it should have been backed up with a short cutting blade; unless you are Cavalry of course and I understand it is not sufficiently understood the degree that horses were used in WW1.

[toaster5sqn]

I'm going to have to take issue with Radbound's idea that a thrust is always quicker than a thrust.

For a smallsword or rapier held in a very point forward guard this may be true, but cut and thrust swords are usually held in a more upright guard and an effective cut is made by punching the hand forward and tightening the lower fingers while rotating the wrist to snap the sword blade onto the target. No it's not a massive cleave that will lop a limb off, but you don't want to make such an over committed cut that will leave you vulnerable if you miss anyway. The quick snap cut from the wrist often targets the forearm where any slice can be debilitating in a swordfight.

By comparison a thrust from the same starting position would involve rotating the hand to bring the point on line before punching the hand forward, this meaning the hand covers exactly the same distance for a cut or a thrust.

[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

[urbanspaceman]

Yes, isn't that Peter's point?

[Bryce]

G'day Guys,
Some examples from my collection of 19th century sword cutlers playing with the design of cutting swords to make them better at thrusting.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Yes, isn't that Peter's point?

Hi Keith... Exactly...The streetfighter in a bar room melee has more resources to use whereas the more conventional opponent in a boxing match follows recognised set moves and responses... What was needed was a sword armed technique which incorporated those moves used in brawling...The unconventional strike, the smash to the opponents face with the pommel...thus a no rules barred open minded free fighting technique /winner takes all approach. The arguement comes in when sword style becomes the focal point or when fieldcraft ...painting the sword black appears... but its probably a smoke screen... It was all to do with the training where the emphasis was on sword fencing instead of Sword Fighting..
Regards,Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

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.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by Bryce

G'day Guys,
Some examples from my collection of 19th century sword cutlers playing with the design of cutting swords to make them better at thrusting.
Cheers,
Bryce

Hello Bryce, Great examples here. I think the sharp Yelman and recurve idea is a well thought out concept.
What I would suggest here is that no matter how much design was being applied on blade style; much of which ended off being part of an arguement on cutting or giving point simply evaded the issue ...and the real concept fault was on technique of training...in the melee where all moves must be allowed...although if you follow my thoughts on this it becomes more obvious that the more facilities you have on your sword ...and in your head to damage your opponent by hook or by crook... and by whatever fighting skills you can use is the essence of how things should have been applied.

My way of looking at an Officer on the battlefield would have been as a gun platform with two pistols both on lanyards plus a sword with all sharp edges and with a spearpoint and spiked pommel...and at least one fighting knife or bayonet. and a couple of grenades...and Trained to Fight not Fence.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[toaster5sqn]

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson

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.

Which was Hutton's complaint in the period, and why he started studying older manuals and eventually produced his own.

Robert