Fencer Archive
Thread: Longswords vs Rapier Cutting vs Thrusting
KaliMirchi wrote:
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.
Yupp, and i stand corrected. The rant was based on a misunderstanding. I naturally thought about a classic rapier. Thus i did not think about thin thrusting points but more of an actual blade.
Sorry again.
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.
I was talking about 15 Minutes after the initial wounding, not the lack of Oxygen. The body itself has a lot of reserves for oxygen (as you already know). Agan we confront based on a misunderstanding.
At 30 minutesof no oxygen to the brain, there ain't nothin left to "revive".
It was an exaggeration. But snce i used actual numbers before that it might have gone unnoticed. I still wish for an edit button =)
Of course after 30 minutes there is nothing to revive. It was a form of irony to euphemise the time period and the resusciation ability.
Dogg
P.S.: Nice to have someone to talk to that has both: Knowledge about swords and knowledge about Medicine.
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
The brachial artery runs under the armpit - it is a rather large artery, and you'd have a decent chance of hitting it with a wider blade.As for bleeding to death - actually, because the artery is easily compressible due to it's anatomic location (vs say the carotid in the neck, or the femoral in the thigh) bleeding to death is much less of a problem then the other arteries mentioned.
What *is* good about the armpit - much more so than the lungs or heart (protected by the ribs) or the artery (pretty small), is a large complex of nerves called the brachial plexus. Rip up those suckers- and the person won't be able to use their arm.
Seena
KaliMirchi wrote:
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.
I am going to agree with all of your points (no pun intended) but this one. And you seem to have enough knowledge on fencing and one handed weapons that you should know this... You see, a thrust from a narrow blade is far more often deadly against an unarmored foe than a slashing attack.Even an unarmed person will put up an arm to block a slashing attack, and unless you are talking about some sort of larger blade, the attack will hit bone and be halted.Sure you are gonna slice into the flesh, but the attack will be anything but deadly. And even if you get/hack through the arm, your going to hit the ribs. After you hack through those, you will finally get to the stuff thats going to drop the enemy.
And if they happen to be armed, you mentioned disabling them by cutting flesh. You should know this is easier said than done. If you aim for the sword arm (which if you hit wont kill them), you are going to be open for a parry repost, or simply stop thrust,and they will stick you where it counts. Plus the sword arm is pretty much the most well defended area on the body since the sword is RIGHT THERE already. And if you hit some other extremity, its going to hurt them like heck, but its probably not going to stop them from trying to kill you.
Now with a thrust from a narrow blade....I will use a foil as my example, because this is the weapon most suited for this...you get to by-pass all the natural defenses of the marvelous human body. They raise their arm to block it, the sword goes right through. If it hits a bone in the arm? The foible of the blade should bounce or flex around the obstruction and continue on to target. Same with the ribs, the point will try to find any way it can to get through.
And once it gets through? Well, thats where all the stuff the body doesnt like getting messed up is kept. Unfortunatly, unless you hit something terribly vital, such as the heart (sometimes lungs can stop them quickly as well) they will not die right away. As you said, the wound is not terribly disabling, but it is completely leathal. Either from internal bleeding, or enough wounds that the body starts to shut down, the wounded party will die. Just not always right way. (thats why fencing, though good in concept, was tragically flawed, because during most duels / attacks, both contestants would take hits, and then after die).
Anyhow, that is just my two cents.
Ximma wrote:
KaliMirchi wrote:
Again Now with a thrust from a narrow blade....I will use a foil as my example, because this is the weapon most suited for this...
Anyhow, that is just my two cents.
A foil is not in any way shape OR form - a weapon.
And no matter how hard you wish to believe otherwise - a puncture wound (ESPECIALLY one caused by a foil) causes less bleeding and less trauma than can be inflicted by a traditional rapier blade.
Foils are toys. They are not weapons.
Seena
I simply used a foil as an example (however inappropraite) due to its extreme flexability and ability to go THROUGH things should it be unblunted. It was the concept of its design and intended purpose I was trying to stress, not its actual use as a weapon. A rapier is nearly as effective as an example, but would be somewhat more likely to become bound on or deflect off of bone.
And less bleeding and less trauma.... yes. But to non vital parts of the body. Other than the sword arm, neck and legs, it is very difficult to cause any form for disabling wound to an enemy with a slashing attack from rapier. And the legs dont make a very good target for starters. And as I said, the sword arm is nigh impossible to wound if your opponent is in any way competent, without killing yourself.
But a thrust is able to bypass most of the bodies natural defenses and wound vital organs. Despite the fact that the trauma suffered is less than a slash theoretically would have been, most torso wounds would still be fatal.
I myself chose to be a heavy swordsman in game. This is because I considered history and the concept of applying the physics of melee weaponry to a futuristic setting where most combatants are armored. It would only be logical that something like the power hammer is far more effective that any one handed weapon. If your foeis armored that is. (most in this game are)
Ximma wrote:
A rapier is nearly as effective as an example, but would be somewhat more likely to become bound on or deflect off of bone.
My mistake, I left a part of this out....
A narrow rapier is just as effective of an example, but THE WIDER RAPIER (left that chunck out, ...oops) would be more likely to become bound or deflect of bone IN A THRUST.
therest of my above post should read correctly now.
Ximma wrote:
most torso wounds would still be fatal.
LOL Well, you must have studied at a different medical school than I... and treated different stab wounds than I.
My experience ... and that's in rl, is muchdifferent.
Seena
Medical school...none.
Historical knowledge....much.
But I have studied pre industrial weaponry and armor extensively in my free time. And I know that the entire reason that narrower thrusting weapons came into being is because they could attack and unarmored or lightly armored foe (with a thrust), and cause wounds to the chest/torso area that would eventually prove fatal. Idealy the heart, but even the lungs will do. (dont forget, most people present a side profile while fighting with smaller blades, so it would more than likely be BOTH lungs that become pierced). And don't forget in the pre-industrial era, medical treatment was not nearly as effective as today's. So most torso wounds were fatal.
And I am not denying that when a slashing attack is used with a light blade that it can cause more wounds to the tissue. I am simply saying that it is far less effective at dealing these wounds to vital areas.
I guess I need to speak in more specific terms... It seems as though I have caused an argument with my post last week...
The idea that I was presenting was this...
Long swords to me are the English longswords...not hand and a half weapons of other origin these are shorter wider at the base and heavier that any rapier blades but have a bloodletter in the blade and a threaded pommel... the rapiers that I speak of are the light blades of the 16th and 17th century with either very wide tangs or basket hilts... I never said that you CANNOT slash with them but a long sword in the advanced stages of combat cannot be used like a rapier and vice versa.. with the long sword (12 to 16 lbs) you would become fatugued very quickly if used like a rapier... A rapier of the style described (NOT a foil) would bend or break under the same abuses you would use a longsword for partucularly if used against a heavily armored opponant... you can yell and scream that I am wrong but remember this I study weapons on a historical reference NOT on a personal combat reference and alot of general description of weapons (longsword, broadsword, twohanded sword, rapier etc.) ARE opinions to describe a CLASS of weapons... rapiers (even the widest of blades IE a musketeer style blade) are generally lighter and quicker5 to 10 lbs, used PRIMARILY (not exclusively) for thrusting...
Oh and as a side note, I repeatedly referenced the 16th and 17th century styles in my post (movies were princess bride etc) and also said twice that that was MY idea of a fencer... that is all I have to say but, if you must, flame away that I am a stupid uneducated idiot and should not ever post anything unless I know how to use, construct, name and die by the subject that I am making a reference to....oh I forgot this is JUST A GAME...
Otica (the wookiee with the most)
MAW Industries
(Intrepid galaxy: 4660 -3545 Moenia, Naboo)
First Wookiee
"YES, I AM a yeti, and I AM from Yavin 4"
Master Artisan
Brawler 4/4/0/0
Fencer 0/0/0/0
Marksman 0/4/0/0
Scout 4/0/4/0
Smuggler 0/0/0/4
Creature Handler 1/3/1/1
Ximma wrote:
Medical school...none.
Historical knowledge....much.
But I have studied pre industrial weaponry and armor extensively in my free time. And I know that the entire reason that narrower thrusting weapons came into being is because they could attack and unarmored or lightly armored foe (with a thrust), and cause wounds to the chest/torso area that would eventually prove fatal. Idealy the heart, but even the lungs will do. (dont forget, most people present a side profile while fighting with smaller blades, so it would more than likely be BOTH lungs that become pierced). And don't forget in the pre-industrial era, medical treatment was not nearly as effective as today's. So most torso wounds were fatal.
And I am not denying that when a slashing attack is used with a light blade that it can cause more wounds to the tissue. I am simply saying that it is far less effective at dealing these wounds to vital areas.
You have historical knowledge. Well, I will tell you that there is a HUGE debate over whether weapons developed the armor, or armor developed the weapons.This question hasnot, norwill it everbe, answered.
As for both lungs being pierced -- do you think a blade enters the human body like butter? Have you any idea how tough ligaments and tendons and fascia are?Your chance of piercing both lungs is infinitesimal.
Mostwounds were not lethal DURING the fight. Especiallywhen swords entered the hands of civilians,being used in duels and self defense... it became more of a "who draws first blood" or "who can incapacitate who first" kind of arrangement.A good percentage of people died from overwhelming infection. And *that* is a fact.
Yourefer to rapier blades as being "light" and "small"-- I will say again, that there was a gamut of rapier blades - some being larger, and equally at home with bothcutting AND thrusting, and some more akin to an epee blade, more tapered, with less of a cutting edge.
We can argue this until we are blue in the facebut the fact is that there are any number of one handed weapons (call them cut and thrust swords if you like that better than rapier) which are equally suited to cutting AND thrusting.
Seena
Iarae wrote:
seena your scary.....
lol
Well, Imoonlight in the ER in a city witha lot of gang activity. I've seen a lot of stab wounds. Too **edit** many.
Seena