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?