Fencer Archive
Thread: Longswords vs Rapier Cutting vs Thrusting
, answer me this: If I had2 living breathing "Dummies" right in front of me and my job was to beat the hell out of one till it's dead with my balled upfists on one of them, and then use my "Rapier" to kill the other one, which one would die first?... Die as in, medically dead (Do I understand what the conditions of "Medically dead" is?...nope, im just trying to sound smart
).
Umm ...
I am assuming you all are thinking whether we should get "VIBRO" long sword or "VIBRO" rapier.
I know hypersonic blades do. It wouldn't matter how strong or sharp the blade is. In essence, a vibro longsword and a vibrorapier wouldn't be so different whether you are slashing, cleaving, or thrusting. So it comes down to "how cool we will be with the blades."
Personally, I think a vibrorapier is asuperior idea. It would make me look very elegant and unique compared to swordsmen and pikemen while looking slightly threatening. (Gaffi makes me look like a towny from hell. Curved sword ... is ok, but not for me. Vibroblade is elegant and unique ... but hey it looks like a butter knife. People think I am weak.)
I don't mind vibro longsword. But please use another name for it. I hate the name. It isn't Medival time here.
If you are crazy, you might want to try a vibroscapel. Hehe. I am sure you all will drop the profession 
Qui'lu of Chilastra, the knife missy
Digital-- Actually the conversation kind of spun off from some comments that were made in the "Future of Fencing" post.
But what you're saying is reallyat the heart of all this. "Vibroweapon" is kind of a catch-all, for the purposes of the game, it's almost no different than thelightsaber because you're talking about a blade that is supposed to be able to cut through or pierceanything.
The fact that the solid blade of a vibroweapon never breaks in this game makes them pretty much equal, except for how you measure damage. So it does come down to what style of weapon people would like to see, and possibly, what they would want the animation would look like.
Hey, Ryushi-- I say it takes an equal amount of time. Beat the dummy in the temple repeatedly with your fist, or beat the dummy in the temple repeatedly with the hilt of the rapier.
Actually small thrusting one handed weapons were created mainly as a civilian weapon against other civilians. In the battle field the narrow swords where not a truelly viable weapon until heavy armors was outdated (as you said by firearms). Against heavily amored foes, thrusting was also not a viable tactic with narrow thrusting weapons. Short swords and the like were more viable because they COULD thrust, and not snap. A rapier thrust at a person in a heavy suit of armor would result in the blade snapping, unless you managed to get into a joint or between plates. But then there is always the chance that even then your blade could snap.
InquisitorPayne wrote:
That statement is just wrong!
The Thrusting weapon desings came up in the late 15th century. Due to the improved coverage of armor on the Body only small targets were available. The Full suit could completely stop any slashing attack. Thus only thrust were possible. Du to these factors, thrusting weapons were developed.
The full body suits came our of fashion a short time after with the implementation of the "Goddach" and Firearms.
Dogg
Ximma wrote:
. A rapier thrust at a person in a heavy suit of armor would result in the blade snapping, unless you managed to get into a joint or between plates. But then there is always the chance that even then your blade could snap.
I guess your rapiers are much different from mine. My two period blades (bothswept hiltsof Spanish Origin, circa late 1600s) are2 inches at the forte tapering only slightly, to a little over an inch and a half at the foible. Neither would have 'snapped' in your example.
Seena
InquisitorPayne wrote:
Do not seek knowledge in books or reference but only in real fighting experience. You have no idea what a hit by a knife does to you unless you had been on the receiving end, trust me.
.A common misconception may be that you compare arrow wounds to piercing wounds. An arrow to the chest can (note: CAN) kill its target, but not because it is like a Thrust. The arrow is constantly spinning at its point and constantly instable in its flight. This cases HUGE tissue damage on impact, much like a drill. These wounds are mostly lethal, but in no way comparable to the wounds created by Thrusting weapon maneuvers.
A Thrust in any Martial art follows but one goal: To slow your enemy.
Dogg
Was in a rush earlier Dogg.. it's so funny, but I was going to use this (the arrow) example as well. Anyone who has ever hunted with a bow knows it isn't (byfar the majority of times)the immediate wound which kills, but the arrowhead, spinning and ripping through major vessels, which causes the deer (or whatever it is you are hunting) to go down because of exsanguination. I've spent many an hour tracking deer while following my grandfather into the woods as a child. Sure there were those fortuitous times when the arrow would find a more lethal resting place, and drop the deer after a few steps. But this was a rarity.
Seena
Outa curiousity, how would you guys classify the Claymore?
And btw, Seena would you marry me? LOL
KaliMirchi wrote:
are2 inches at the forte tapering only slightly, to a little over an inch and a half at the foible. Neither would have 'snapped' in your example.
Seena
an inch and a half at the foible?! Good gawd thats one hell of a wide rapier. And yes, a blade like that would not snap.
Ximma wrote:
KaliMirchi wrote:
are2 inches at the forte tapering only slightly, to a little over an inch and a half at the foible. Neither would have 'snapped' in your example.
Seena
an inch and a half at the foible?! Good gawd thats one hell of a wide rapier. And yes, a blade like that would not snap.
Actually, this is a standard Rapier Blade of the late 1600s, spanish or french origin. The italian Blades were a bitr thinner, but nevertheless, you greatly underestimate the Flexibility and sturdyness of a Rapier Blade. Trust me, they do not "Snap"! =)
Dogg
Lurimoose wrote:
Outa curiousity, how would you guys classify the Claymore?
And btw, Seena would you marry me? LOL
To answer your question:
Me, personally, i would classify a Claymore as "Claymore". It is a distincitve weapon type. It is shorter in blade length than a "Bidenhander", or "two-handed sword", But used exclusively in both hands. It is in Blade length almost comparable to a "longsword" (For the non-swordsmen a last time: You may know it as "**edit** Sword") but the Hilt is almost as broad as that of a Bidenhander, the Grip, about bouble the size of that of a Longsword.
A sturdy, but heavy sword with 2 sharp edges. Due to the lack of a "hollow line" (sorry, lack of english terminology, anyone please correct me here), the Blade is less flexible and breaks more easily than a standard Sword or Longsword Blade.
A formidable weapon against riders and Pikemen, but too slow and Clumsy in a personal fight. A good claymore Fighter should not be underestimated, though. Those Blades hurt, whey they finally impact. Luckily i was wearing a Full plate while fighting, otherwise i would have had even more fractures =)
Dogg
Ximma wrote:
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.
I may interrupt here (hell, i thought this thread was dead):
I will give you a little insight on actual real life reference (not books, not stories, not films, but actual combat with sharp blades):
Let's first start with the excemple of a Knife-fight (very fitting for the fencing in general, btw).
If you dare to block a Knife or Dagger with your arm, you will be able to defelct the hit, true. The resulting blood loss, severed muscles and starins, however will effectively diable that body part. Adrenaline can do almost miraculous things, but even adrenaline is unable to repair a destroyed motoring system (read: muscles). That limb you just used for deflection is useless. You may have safed you life for a few seconds, but a couple of seconds later you are dead.
I fought many Knife-Fighters (some even street fighter who sough me harm), And from all of these i was only afraid of those using slashing attacks. A knife is fast, it is sharp and it is deadly. Not because of the thrust, but because of the deep gaping wounds cased by its blade.
Once a fighter disabled one of your arms you are as good as dead.
Do not seek knowledge in books or reference but only in real fighting experience. You have no idea what a hit by a knife does to you unless you had been on the receiving end, trust me.
As the next excemple we will take a Modern Sport fencer (had that just a couple of months ago) with a figting foil (not a sport foil; more sturdy and rigid than the sport one) against a Swordfighter (me). I was using a 813,5g Spatha, germanian style (my favourite weapon after a Dagger).
His weapon was faster and more flexible. He was (limited in its use) bound to thrusting. He stabbed me once in the right arm (my weapon arm) and once in the left Leg (doh, my own fault). He was fast, admitted, but i had to do just one clean hit. I stopped my Blade after a quart-riposte only half an inch before his open Throat. This single one slash would have been ulmtimately lethal. His Thriust only slowed me down, but to achieve victory he would have had to pierce either my Throat, or my eyes in an almost impossible to achieve angle.
Simply with thrusting he simply was unable to achieve victory.
Just for reference: We did 5 more blades ofver the course of a week and always to the same effect. In every single case he would have been beheaded.
Third excemple:
Let's just compare the wounds:
A Thrusting wound is a pointed wound, going deep, but causing minimal tissue damage. Due to the bodys natural defenses (shock) those wounds close almost insantly unless the weapon used is diamond shaped in its radial cut.18th century epees would qualify for that, but in the 18th century a firearm was more dangerous than an epee. (we are talking about french epees, if anyone is interested to know)
A slashing wound on the other hand not only does massive tissue damage, but also causes deep, gaping wounds, thereby negating the body natural defenses. The blodd loss alone can in most cases kill the target. The real threat, though, lies in the body parts aimed for by the swordsman. You do not aim for abdomen, or upper torso, you aim for the arms/legs (if you are humanitarian) or the Throat/Neck. I do not have to tell, that the throat and neck are prime targets. You may think that these are easy to guard, but do not forget, that we are talking about martial arts, specialised in hitting these targets, no matter the odds. And trust, me, i will hit them.
Methods used are Bonding, Trapping or simply reposting. In all those cases, instant death is the goal the swordsman aims for and direct incapacitation is what he will achieve by it. (Only few maneuvers would allow for instant death and these are REALLY hard to get in).
A common misconception may be that you compare arrow wounds to piercing wounds. An arrow to the chest can (note: CAN) kill its target, but not because it is like a Thrust. The arrow is constantly spinning at its point and constantly instable in its flight. This cases HUGE tissue damage on impact, much like a drill. These wounds are mostly lethal, but in no way comparable to the wounds created by Thrusting weapon maneuvers.
A Thrust in any Martial art follows but one goal: To slow your enemy.
Dogg
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.
That statement is just wrong!
The Thrusting weapon desings came up in the late 15th century. Due to the improved coverage of armor on the Body only small targets were available. The Full suit could completely stop any slashing attack. Thus only thrust were possible. Du to these factors, thrusting weapons were developed.
The full body suits came our of fashion a short time after with the implementation of the "Goddach" and Firearms.
Dogg