Sword Use

[Felix]

The lead article in the second volume of Spada (which is likely known to those interested in Western Martial Arts) is about the lethality of wounds. The authors (one in WMA, the other a trauma surgeon) looked at both the historical accounts of people wounded, as well as modern cases of people brought into an ER.

Vegetius was wrong. A two-three inch deep thrust in the body is often surviveable, and in the cases where it is ultimately fatal this may take hours or days before the victim succumbs. Any number of men fatally wounded with thrusts have managed to kill their opponents in duels. The idea of rapid, reliable kill is greatly overrated. Please get a copy of this article, it is an eye-openner.

Incidently, I have doubts about using a sword to sever the spinal cord when attacking an opponent from the front. The vertebral bodies protect the cord from that direction, and are an inch or more thick. There are cartilage discs between the bones, but these are not very thick and are oriented at varying angles along the spine - hitting a disc alone would not be an easy thing. Cutting the cord from the front with a thrust would be roughly comparable to thrusting a sword into the fresh thigh of a pig and thrusting through the femur with the tip of the sword. Not impossible, but not readily repeatable either.

[Tarbicus]

The lead article in the second volume of Spada (which is likely known to those interested in Western Martial Arts) is about the lethality of wounds.

Thanks for the information. Is it available online, or is it available to buy via post? Whatever which way, can you give details please? Thanks. The first Spada I Googled was a marketing company. :evil:

[Felix]

Yes, it is available online: http://revival.us/index.asp?PageAction= ... D=251&HS=1

Much of the volume is renaissance oriented; but there is also an article on the use of the shield which is, I think, very enlightening. That article is derived from pictorial sources, the limited written sources available (mostly late) and practical experimentation.

[Antonius Lucretius]

If we are to judge by the decapitation scenes on the Antonine Column, the gladius was a pretty good cutter.. It takes a sharp weapon to separate a head from the rest of a person..
As regards lethal or non lethal wounds, I think the ancients were pretty much aware that many wounds are lethal, but not immediately. That is why emphasis was not on striking deadly blows, but disabling ones.
As rightly said earlier, a small cut across the forehead will produce enough blood to blind a warrior, besides scaring him out of the battle line. Caesar knew what he was doing at Pharsalus when he ordered his legionaries to strike at Pompey's cavalrymens' faces.
The same is true for a leg wound. It's disabling, yet rarely lethal. A simple cut across the right forearm is a totally disabling blow.
The Romans weren't the only ones to know that. For instance the Maoris --great warriors too-- had two types of soldiers. The fast running ones, were tasked at wounding the enemy: strike a disabling blow, usually hamstringing the opponent, then leave to chase another one while the slower, heavier warriors were tasked to come up after them and finish off the disabled enemies.
As for "slashing" swords, the fact that the Celtic longsword turned into the spatha, which itself became the prototype of the migration swords, themselves leading to the medieval sword speaks highly in favor of their efficiency.

[Crispvs]

Thanks for that Antoninus. I grew up in New Zealand but had not heard about the Maoris having different classes of soldier (which actually sounds a bit odd in the context of Maori culture) but they were very adaptable fighters and tactics may have developed considerably over time. The only distinctions I was aware of were that a 'toa' was led by the tribal rangitira (chief) or his nominee and (depending on the size of the group, which could vary from half a dozen to several score) possibly one or two men who could act as section leaders. Everyone else was equal as a warrior. Or so I understand. That does not, of course, exclude the possibility of some warriors performing different tasks in battle (or perhaps 'skirmish' and / or 'threatening display' would normally be a better terms to use).
Completely OT here, but the native weapons of the Maoris were all clubs of various sorts. Probably the most common would have been the patu (PAH-too), which was carved in one piece from wood or whalebone and was up to a foot long (including the handle). It was shaped somewhat like a bulbous footprint, often with quite a sharp overhang on one edge and was often extensively decorated with intricate carving. A slightly higher status weapon was the mere (MEH-ray) which was a similar size to the patu but was carved from whalebone or more commonly stone. The end was broad and rounded and from there the sides tapered, sometimes in a gentle curve, coming to a narrow width of about two inches before epanding slightly into a bulbous or trapezial end, which would normally be pierced for the attachment of a carrying cord. Meres are normally finished with a plain, smooth surface. It is normally said these these weapons were probably used with a thrusting action, which patus may have been used with a chopping acion. There is some terminalogical crossover between the mere and the patu, which may mean that both words may originally been regional names for the same things. The weapon most often seen in modern ceremonial displays is the taiaha (TIE-a-hah), which was a weapon reserved for warriors of high social status. At first sight it appears to be a all wood spear with a stubby head but in fact this 'head' is actually the projecting tougue of a stylised human head, which would be directed torwards another group as part of a challenge or greeting. The 'business end' of the weapon is at the other end, which is shaped like a medical spatula. When swung with the correct action, the taiaha could smash bones and is reputed to be able to cut the top of a man's skull off (a-la Kill Bill) if used accurately and with the correct action (which takes years to learn aparently). There was another weapon whose name I forget, which was made with a haft five feet or so long with a more or less triangular projection from the side of one end. I am not aware of how this one was used.
The traditional maori weapons were superceded and to a large extent replaced by muskets in the first half of the nineteenth century. The maoris were instantly impressed with the power and range (and noise) of the musket and it quickly became the number one trading item demanded of British and European traders. This went hand in hand with a scaling up of inter-tribal conflicts with the result that the period of the 1820s and 30s is often known in New Zealand as the period of the 'Musket Wars'.

Anyway, that's enough of a distraction. Let's get back to the matter at hand, which I seem to remember was the use, by the Romans, of the sword.

Crispvs

[Antonius Lucretius]

Crispus, a bit more digression...
It's not really a digression, really, since primitive societies have a lot in common and the study of one helps understand the other.
I've always been struck by similarities in codes of honor between samurai and centurions, for instance, but never mind..
I found the Maori story in John Keegan's "A History of Warfare". A must read but I've said that about a thousand times. Keegan quotes a book by A. Vayda called "War in ecological perspective".
Here's Vayda's quotes. After the enemy has been put into rout, the pursuit of the defeated began:

"The great aim of these fast running warriors was to chase straight on and never stop, only striking one blow at one man, so as to cripple him, so that those behind should be sure to overtake and finish him. It was not uncommon for one man, strong and swift of foot, when the enemy was fairly routed, to stab with a light spear ten or twelve men in such a way as to ensure their being overtaken and killed".

..And now back to our regularly scheduled program..

[Mitra]

It is true: Marshall statistics on repulsion to kill isn't applicable on other periods (we have different attitudes vs japanese soldiers , respect germans and italians soldiers , and germans vs russians respect germans vs anglosaxons).

But this attitudes bear from a moral culture (or mental conditioning) conscious or unconscious. The same "Marshall" repulsion has found solution in Vietnam using human form targets for training shots (with post-traumatical reactions after the war).

But moral culture (like discipline , which is a mental conditioning) , is very different from the self-preservation instinct. From the point of view of instinct the man isn't changed. How Du Picq affirm , moral culture or discipline can only slow the self-preservation , but this have the upper hand at last.

Death in battle can be honourable in a warrior culture but isn't an moral objective in a battle. We can see the vikings how example , we have a big difference between the viking moral and the "metis" and prudence during the raid expeditions of northmen.

A combat where the soldiers fighting at < 1 m. of distance searching actively to kill the enemy taking high risk , have a lenght of few seconds , after we have the death of one of two (Tyrteus,Ammianus,ecc reference to feet againt feet combat is a appropriate image for a mortal and intense fighting). On this basis during two-four hour of battle we must have a carnage also for the winner , but so isn't. The rout start from the last ranks men , and start for fear,stress,surprise because a man can resist only to definite quantity of terror ; bigger destruction is caused from a type of arm , less the men resist on the field of battle.