Fencer Archive
Thread: Longswords vs Rapier Cutting vs Thrusting
Awon wrote:
Under the arm will kill you but dam if your retarded enough to get stabed there you should die.
Ok.... time for the physiology lesson.
Dropping a lung in and of itself,will not kill you. Unless however,your other lung is diseased, or you hit a major artery causing massive bleeding. There is though, a lethalcondition known as "tension pneumothorax" in which a hole can be made froma puncture wound into the lung, and, with the right "conditions" a ball valve effect occurs. This allowsair entry into the thoracic cavity through the hole (because of the negative pressures generated with respirations), yet said air is not able to escapeback out ofthe hole that it entered (Usually because tissue - the lining of the lungs- prevents it). This causes air to accumulate in the thoracic cavity and generate such high pressures that the OTHER lung can't work, causing respiratory and, sometimes, cardac failure.
This condition is not likely to occur with the blade originally described by Rosar - a very thin, tapered blade, with a sharp point. This will cause the lung to deflate, and will make you short of breath, and slow you down- but it will not kill you.
It is much more likely to be caused by a 'true' (ack hate that terminology) rapier blade tip, which is wider than that described up Rosar - usually approximately 1 inch or so. BUT a wider blade is more difficult to introduce into the chest cavity because of those pesky ribs.
So, bottom line, thin tapered sharp tip - easier to get TO the lung, less likely to do lethal damage. Wider more substantial tip, muchHARDER to get to the lung, but more likely to be lethal.
Seena
kyratdragoneater wrote:
sweetness a person that knows swords could you tell me all you know?(bah you probly won't but it would be cool anyway)
Heya krayt,
There's a TON of great reading material on the web! Just do a search... you'll find some excellent references. I wish I'd had it available when my interest in swords blossomed... as it was I was thankful for inter-library loan!
Seena
Okay, time to bash Both authors! My reply in bold type:
KaliMirchi wrote:
Raph kindlyasked that her post on The Future of Fencing not be sidetracked, so I will start another.
Rosar wrote:
.Actually, it wasn't me who first mentioned longswords, it was someone else, near the top of the page, who also described someone who lacks the basic sense to use a rapier as it is intended. Sure, fighting with a longsword and fighting with a rapier are two very different styles, but it's hard to imagine someone confusing the two weapons.
I must be missing this commentary that you are referring to. I see no mention of longsword at all- save your reference. A reference that is totally meaningless (comparing a rapier to a longsword) in that rapier is a one handed weapon, and longsword is (primarily)two - but also can be wieled at times with one - (as in the **edit** sword - which earns it the nickname of one and a halfhanded sword). No one mentioned using a rapier as a longsword - they are two different animals.
Nomenclature changes with every Master. In some schools a Bradsword really is referring to all weaponry aside from a Rapier (and yes, including foils). The mixture is a side effect of modern fencing, that greatly confused the naming of fencing weaponry. (Just take a look at what modern sport fencers call a sabre...). If you go to a more historical Naming of fencing weapons, you have hundreds of names for hunders of Blade- and fencing styles. If anyone is interested in can post a full list, but i doubt anyone is. Those familiar with the topic know them and someone not familiar with it does not understand them.
Rapiers, like most every sword in existence, *can* be used as both a cutting and thursting weapon, but almost everyone associates them with thrusting
Not only *can* they be used as a cutting weapon, they are. People associate them (wrongly) with primarily 'thrusting' weapons because that is what they see on TV and film. And the Fencers who choreograph fight scenes are not generally trained in periodRapier fighting - they are fencers. The fight secenes reflect this.
Due to their extremely sharp edge and its highly flexible blade, a rapier is a splendous Cutting weapon. It is important to mention, that all sword types incorporate Cutting and thrusting.The situation dictates the needs. A weapon that lacks either ability is inferior in actual combat (mention: we are no longer and never again will be talking about sport fencing). Compared to Medievl eurpoean or early Germanian sword styles, though, you see a higher emphasis on Thrusts in Rapiers. This evolved from the chnage in Armor as well as a change in Blade length. It is interesting though, that even the greeks and Romans favoured Thrusting to cutting.
The term 'rapier' is actually quite general, covering everything from the 'real' rapier, 16th and 17th century 'cut-and-thrust' blades, the the flimsy, whip-like foils of modern sport fencing, but in all cases the rapier's primary function *is* as a thrusting weapon.
If the source you are obtaining your information from is calling a foil a rapier, I suggest you find another source.
It depends on the source. A modern fencer might actually refer to a group of weapons that contain a foil as an effect of sport fencing. As i already said: Nomenclature changes from master to Master.
Anyone who bothers to look up even the basic, dictionary definition of a rapier, or has actually seen one, would immediately associate the weapon with thrusting.
I would suggest to you that a dictionary is a poor reference when it comes to obtaining definitions of weaponry. The rapiers you are referring to (one that you would immediately associate with thrusting) are likely replications with epee blades. If you truly want to sound intelligent, I suggest that you visit a museum with period rapiers. These are formidable weapons, equally at home with leaving a disabling gash in someone's arm, or finding their way through potential entry points in plate mail armor.
I agree.
It's very easy to contrast a so-called "broadsword" (a term invented to describe nearly every sword intended primarily for cutting) with a rapier.
Again, your knowledge gap is impressive for someone who is attempting to define what a rapier is, and isn't. There are any number of primarily cutting weapons (katana, scimitar, kaskarars, kampilan - I could name dozens of others) which are in no way related to broadswords. Broadsword is a catch all term tolong, heavy,2 handed(That being the key definer - not that it was a 'cutting' weapon)Medieval Western European weapons (that were, actually CRUSHING and CLOBBERINGweapons more than they were cutting).
See my note about Nomenclature
A typical rapier's blade doesn't begin very wide at the hilt, and tapers to a very sharp point at the end. It can be used for cutting, sure, but it wouldn't be nearly as effective as a thrust.
I will give you an assignment. Visit a museum with period 16th- 18th century rapiers. Then come back and describe their blades to me. What you are describing is a reproduction with an epee blade. This isn't to say that there weren't thin rapier blades, especially in the later period of the weapon, but, for the most part, they weren't what you seem to think they were.
Actually, a rapier is quite good at cutting. Actually it creates wounds that medical Knowledge of the 16th century could not heal.
Thrusts are innately far more lethal than cuts, anyway, which makes rapiers quite lethal.
Again you are WAY off the mark. Especially with the blade you are describing. A thin, very sharp point leaves a puncture wound which, unless you are VERY lucky, is not lethal at all. The most vital of organs- the heart, is extremely difficult to reach, nestled safely behind the sternum and ribcage. Even a puncture in a lung lobe is not particularly disabling.Nor is it particularly disabling if it enters as large muscle mass - cut ACROSS that same muscle mass, and the person is disabled. And this is the objective in the fight- disable your foe (slashing at the easily accessed arms and legs), then deliver the coup de grace when he's lying vulnerable, on the ground.
The flexibility of the Blade creates a deep, gaping, s-shaped wound. This wound bleeds heavily, is deep and almost impossible to treat without advanced medical Knowledge. Such a wound in the right place would kill its victim in about 15 to 30 minutes. Given the logistics at the 16th century, i doubt medical staff would arive in time. If you hit the intened Area with your slash, you victim drops deap in seconds. I have to mention though, that a thrust is not only effective at the heart. A thrust at the artery in the armpits, a thrust at the artery near the groins or a thrust to the throat would be equally lethal! Basically it is true though, that a wrong placed slash is more lethal than a wrong placed Thrust. But a good fencer knows what to do in what situation.
Sidenote: A Thrust is by far easier to deflect than a slash.
That will definitely help me a lot more than calling me an idiot.
Actually, it was you who initiated calling people idiots in this forum.
No comment
Seena
Aside from my answers:
Fencing is a hot topic. Medieval Fencers clash with rennaisance fencer who in turn clash with sport fencers.
Actualy comparisons are only possible in direct Sparring with sharp weapons.
If anyone wants specifics about life-sparring tests (life-sparring = sparring with sharp weapons), fel free to PM me.
Thanx
Dogg
KaliMirchi wrote:
FURY_Chaser wrote:
While a long slash can compleatly cripple a person, a stab under the arm to the lung will kill.
Stabs/slash's both have thier effectiveness
Ya have two lungs. People function fine with one lung. Drop a lung and it will slow you down a lot -- but it won't kill you.
Seema
That sentence shows me that you never fought with sharp weapons. Thrut me: You are dead once your lung is punctured. You lung will collapse, leav you without air, make you slow and open you to the lethal punch. Your lungs (yes, both) fill with blood. Even if only on lung is punctured you are out of combat in a matter of seconds /Had it hapen to me)
Dogg
Awon wrote:
Under the arm will kill you but dam if your retarded enough to get stabed there you should die.
Do some sparring with me and i will show you, how easy it is for me to stab you there..... Ever herad about the term "Trapping" ?
Dogg
KaliMirchi wrote:
Awon wrote:
Under the arm will kill you but dam if your retarded enough to get stabed there you should die.
Ok.... time for the physiology lesson.
Dropping a lung in and of itself,will not kill you. Unless however,your other lung is diseased, or you hit a major artery causing massive bleeding. There is though, a lethalcondition known as "tension pneumothorax" in which a hole can be made froma puncture wound into the lung, and, with the right "conditions" a ball valve effect occurs. This allowsair entry into the thoracic cavity through the hole (because of the negative pressures generated with respirations), yet said air is not able to escapeback out ofthe hole that it entered (Usually because tissue - the lining of the lungs- prevents it). This causes air to accumulate in the thoracic cavity and generate such high pressures that the OTHER lung can't work, causing respiratory and, sometimes, cardac failure.
This condition is not likely to occur with the blade originally described by Rosar - a very thin, tapered blade, with a sharp point. This will cause the lung to deflate, and will make you short of breath, and slow you down- but it will not kill you.
It is much more likely to be caused by a 'true' (ack hate that terminology) rapier blade tip, which is wider than that described up Rosar - usually approximately 1 inch or so. BUT a wider blade is more difficult to introduce into the chest cavity because of those pesky ribs.
So, bottom line, thin tapered sharp tip - easier to get TO the lung, less likely to do lethal damage. Wider more substantial tip, muchHARDER to get to the lung, but more likely to be lethal.
Seena
Sorry, posted to fast. Only read it now. Ignore my rant above. This is exactly what happened to me (except the cardiac failure). I was stabbed by a replica of a french 17th century rapier with a Damnod shaped Blade.
Dogg
Isn't this a very grey area? I mean, there are so many variables to take into consideration when arguing what is the best reasoning. For instance, asthe psycological and physiological states of peoplevary so greatly would it not be plausable toconcludethat where some will go down, others will remain standing?
InquisitorPayne wrote:
Even if only on lung is punctured you are out of combat in a matter of seconds /Had it hapen to me)
Braglor wrote:
Isn't this a very grey area? I mean, there are so many variables to take into consideration when arguing what is the best reasoning. For instance, asthe psycological and physiological states of peoplevary so greatly would it not be plausable toconcludethat where some will go down, others will remain standing?
InquisitorPayne wrote:
Even if only on lung is punctured you are out of combat in a matter of seconds /Had it hapen to me)
Gray area? may be! People staying standing? I dount it. Adrenaline s great! It keeps you working for a long tme and lets you ignore wounds and pain. But if your lungs (or one of t) collapses, you simply lack the oxygen to keep operating. after 2 minutes, you have almost no strength left and only adrenaline keeps you going. After 5 minutes, you faint. After 15 minutes you face permanent brain damage. After 30 Minutes docs have a hard time to revive you.
You do not need to trust my words. But i speak of personal experience.
Dogg
Gray area? may be! People staying standing? I dount it. Adrenaline s great! It keeps you working for a long tme and lets you ignore wounds and pain. But if your lungs (or one of t) collapses, you simply lack the oxygen to keep operating. after 2 minutes, you have almost no strength left and only adrenaline keeps you going. After 5 minutes, you faint. After 15 minutes you face permanent brain damage. After 30 Minutes docs have a hard time to revive you.
You do not need to trust my words. But i speak of personal experience.
Dogg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dogg,
I'm a physician... SO I speak from personal experience as well. Dropping a lung and NOT hitting a major artery or creating a tension pneumothorax (which it sounds like you had) will not kill you or deprive you of oxygen to the brain. It'll slow ya down... but it isn't instant death like you see in the movies. In fact, depending on the circumstances, you'dmight beable to keep fighting for some time.
But this isn't really the argument. The argument ishow 'lethal' a thin, tapered, pointedweapon tip "thrusting" is or isn't when compared to a wider, traditional rapier blade which is designed for thrusting and cutting.
And dogg? Just a fyi. In a temperate environment an adult faces some degree ofpermanent brain damage from anoxia after four minutes, not 15. There are isolated cases of (usually) children who fall into icy rivers who aresuccessfully (in the sense that they are 'alive' but suffer devastating neurological consequences) resuscitated. That's because the freezing temperatures decrease the body's metabolic rate, allowing the cells to function with minimal levels of oxygen.
At 30 minutesof no oxygen to the brain, there ain't nothin left to "revive".
Seena
Awon wrote:
Im saying your gonna die if you get stabed under the arm because unless its a small nice its gonna hit a lot more than just one lung.
If you get stabbed in the armpit, your artery is severed. You will simply bleed to death in a matter of minutey. Unconcious after 3 minutes. With shock even earlier.
Dogg