You've got to know when to thrust 'em (When to thrust 'em) Know when to cut them (when to cut them) Know when to walk away And know when to run You never count your wounds When you're sittin' at the table There'll be time enough for countin' When the dealin's done.
Thanks, nice video. The physics of the concept you are talking about is pressure. Pressure (measured in Pascals or "P", "kP", "MP" etc) applied on an object is force (in Newtons) divided by surface area (in square meters). Cheers
The real advantage of thrusts is that they normally hit a much more vulnerable area when compared to cuts. When sparring I usually get caught with cuts along my arms, shoulders, legs etc. Thrusts usually get you in the torso, around the heart, liver, lungs etc.
CanadaMMA More lethal points? Yes for sure. However forearms, hand's, and thigh cuts could take your opponent out of the fight nearly instantly. A thrust to the vitals will not instantly drop every person, only some of them.
CanadaMMA My two cents are this: Thrusts are ideal in late military application (musket line warfare) or civilian application (duels, etc.). However, thrusts are in no way ideal for a military melee situation. A thrust, especially one delivered with a specialized trusting weapon, binds your weapon up and tangles it for far longer than the fast, flowing and transitory cut. Therefore, cuts are better in war as they have less potential to expose you, the fighter, to a strike by a third party while you extricate your weapon from your victim.
VelmiVelkiZrut Gladi, spear, arrows, and many other types of weapons would disagree. :P It all depends on what you're best with, and what you're fighting.
I take George Silver's position on the matter of thrust vs. cut. The "perfect" and/or "true" fight must include both. The reason is simple: There are times when a thrust will land, and times when a cut will land, but very few times when either a thrust OR a cut will land. Even in instances where either is viable, one or the other will usually be safer for the man delivering it. The best one to use is the one that provides the safest means of inflicting of a wound in a given circumstance. Which one kills or incapacitates faster or more reliably is irrelevant, as one must fight until one's opponent is no longer able to fight, and no opportunity to wound him without exposing oneself to danger should be missed, regardless of the type of wound to be inflicted. Thrust vs. cut? That's like saying "bacon vs. eggs" to me. I don't want to see either one without the other.
Britt Gardner I also believe that cuts and thrusts both have their virtues, but very often you have a choice of which to deliver - imagine the opponent cuts to your left-side neck and you guard it with inside ward (AKA quarte or Guard 1). At this moment you have various ripostes available to you, including a variety of cuts and two sensible types of thrust. Which one you choose to do can be a result of a number of tactical factors, but one of those might be the potential effect on the target - a thrust in the neck will certainly enter the body more easily than a cut in the head, especially if the opponent is wearing a hat.
scholagladiatoria I actually agree with you 100%, here. In situations like that I suppose it becomes mostly a matter of discretion and what you've personally drilled the most. In certain systems, I'd even drill the thrust to the exclusion of the cut for this riposte, since, when under stress, we tend to default to what we've done the most repetitions of in training. For instance, in English sabre systems, for the sake of historical accuracy, there is a clear advantage in practicing a thrust to the neck in the situation you describe. It's not at all unlikely that your opponent is a Sikh or some such wearing a mail shirt and several wraps of turban. So, if I had been an officer drilling for that sort of situation, I'd have probably practiced my riposte as a neck thrust, myself. Context makes all the difference, even and perhaps especially in how we train.
I approve and agree with the video, personally preferring thrusts before cuts most of the times myself. Though flexibility should not be underestimated and cutting has its places. There are plenty of places like the wrists, throat or back of the lower legs that would neutralize an opponent very quickly.
I would add that the "human dimension" is being over looked a bit here. We are talking about the mechanics of the weapon but not really the effects of the wound on the human body. A puncture wound, especially in the torso, tends to put a person into almost immediate shock. That incapacitates them if not immediately, then certainly very quickly. Here's some anecdotal evidence.... Many people are afraid of a needle... but not a blade. I believe this is an evolutionary behavior. Our bodies know that penetration is much more likely to damage an internal organ than a slice or a chop.
This is why the Romans moved from a slashing sword to a thrusting sword. The Romans' great strength was recognising superior technology when they invaded a new land. After they invaded Hispania they realised how effective the local thrusting sword was. The Romans noted that while their slashing swords could inflict terrible-looking and very bloody wounds, they weren't neccessarily fatal - whereas the thrusting swords the locals used were nearly always fatal if they penetrated the abdominal cavity - and so the Roman Gladius came into being.
The roman legionaries were basically copied from the Iberian Scutari, down to the pila. It's much easier to fight in units with thrusting weapons because you basically create a wall of points and if you crash in to that you're essentially going to die. See hoplites, pikemen, Roman legionaries, etc.
However, the Gladius was not, strictly speaking, a thrusting sword- it was dual-purpose. As Silver said, there is no perfect fight without both cut and thrust.
+Sparky Cat But they still got destroyed by barbarians,especially Thracians and Dacians.Speed and khukri-like weapons,along with fearlessness made it very easy for them to defeat the Romans because they could go through their defenses.Dont forget cavalry,something the Romans were always mediocre or even worse at.The Schythian people(including the mentioned Thracians and Dacians)would just shoot them with arrow and use riders to pepper them with shots or just charge into them
If you look at Greek, balkan and turkish clothes of 1700 to 1900 you will notice either thick cloth or many layers of cloth, and this was to provide some protection against cuts and trusts from blades. Traditional clothes at that area are a form of cheap armor. I will gather some more informantion about this and i aill make areply video in the near future.
Hey you're the guy that makes shields :D why won't you gift one to Matt as well? About that point, I believe that to be totally true across all of history, just like native Americans, Europeans and Chinese all used cotton or other fabrics as armor, and linothorax was after all made of linen.
JustGrowingUp Yeah but Matt does melee fights with multiple participants. ***** I really hope he sees this message :P anyway I have much respect for the effort you take in making all those cool shields :) the celtic one was REALLY GOOD!
This is something we cover in they style of knife combatives that I train in. Even a modern denim jacket can offer considerable protection especially from a folding knife. We train to thrust so as to enter the target and cut on retraction with a coma cut. That is turning the blade to produced a large comma, as in punctuation, shaped cut. Try this next time you're cutting if you don't already it's an impressive wound.
I'm reminded a little of Miyamoto Musashi's commentary in the Book of Five Rings about what he refers to as the difference between a "cut" and a "slash". It's been long enough that I can't recall which was which off the top of my head, but the gist of it was that there were poorly struck cuts that only lightly injured (commonly given by inexperienced swordsmen), to be sharply (no pun intended) contrasted with properly delivered cuts that actually gave deep, disabling, killing injuries. I also remember hearing about several cases of people being thrust through multiple times with poorer effect than a well-struck cutting blow, but I think most of these occurred with blades that were thin enough to actually fail to hit anything particularly critical to immediate life.
when the blade does not hit a larger blood vesel or takes a good hit in an organ which is well suportet with blood. e.g. When the blades run through your lung you can still fight. You should keep attention to your other half of the lung. When a cut goes deep enough in the the body it is more likely that essential parts will be cut. Good cuts on the inner side of the arms or legs sever the ateries in there. But a thrust penetrates further with the same amount of force than a cut.
I think in earlier vids Matt mentioned it also depends on context as you have a longer time removing the thrust strike into an opponent and if you are in a multi-opponent fight or on horseback, you are left in a disadvantage without weapon or protection unless you also had a shield/buckler/another knife-sword. Another poster was correct in trying to slice wound first so the thrust can be quick to an open spot less protected and not grabbed deflected and then you are less exposed while quickly retracting the blade.
I think in several historical manuscripts situations are described where either the cut or the thrust is preferred to do. E.g. in Peter von Danzig Codex.44.A.8 a very general rule is written in context of a Zornhau technique which describes this point very clearly for me: "...thus that you do not hew when you should stab, and not slice when you should hew, and not stab when you should slice." It's a simple thing to think of situations out of which it just makes sense to follow-up with either a cut or a thrust, but not the other.
It's certainly true that thrusts take less force/effort to wound with than cuts. However, powerful cuts have more potential for quick or immediate incapacitation than powerful thrusts. You have lots of historical and more-recent accounts of thrusts failing to incapacitate. Even getting stabbed in the heart or face/head doesn't necessarily drop a person instantly. Decapitation, on the other hand, does. A deep cut to the head almost always stops a fight. Cutting off an arm or hand at least makes it extremely difficult for the opponent to prevail, and removing a leg or foot even more so. George Silver was right about this.
I own and read through this book, and if one selects examples objectively, the conclusion is that: in a war skirmish on horse or foot the best line of action with a sword, straight or curved, is of multiple Cuts, due to the fluidity of movement and the natural clubbing instinct for that, over the acquired thrusting, stabbing motion. Thrusting is used only when finishing an opponent off in an one on one encounter.
talking about clothing... garments were made out of hemp before cotton was favoured... hemp would be very hard to cut, possibly the hardest natural fibre/material to cut. I wish we could be allowed to grow hemp for it's manufacturing properties. (at the least) I believe the only reason cannabis is illegal is due the corporate fear of cottage industry.
+Decay fact is you can only get stoned from smoking CANNABIS, canvas is made from HEMP completely different plants. But don't feel bad, ignorance of this fact has been with us since the 1930 campaign by Dupont & co to destroy their competition. Fact : you can not get stoned form HEMP, you can however smoke it & get a headache if you choose ignorance. If you choose to recognise HEMP for it's manufacturing applications you can build walls, make fine paper that has been used for such since ... since writing began, make sails & the best rope money can buy, you can also feed the world on it's gruel which is full of cannabinoids charged with doing your body good... I hear HEMP seed makes excellent bread. & while you grow it ; it removes carbon CO2 from our atmosphere injecting fresh oxygen... I could go on but that is what google is for. Oh & those walls we could build using it... harden stronger than concrete & ... while they harden into rock they convert ever more CO2 locking the CO2 into rock & out of our atmosphere.
+Danny O'Moore interesting Danny. I once looked into growing hemp for seed and fiber but it is very strictly regulated in my country because of its wrongful association with cannabis. Also have heard raw silk was almost uncuttable/unpierceable in many circumstances.
Just from reading "Swordsmen": - In general, british cavalry seems to have much higher preference for cut(*) than thrust. Despite (in case of heavy cavalry sword) worse design and universal complain regarding sharpness of their sword compared to those of their Indian opponents. Key advantages seem to be: - it is easier/more natural to cut - cut is more likely to hit; if given with force, it can even overcome proper guard - less likely to leave you disarmed (proper thrusting technique may be difficult when "fellow" do not cooperate) - more likely to incapacitate opponent either by stunning him or but destroying/damaging body parts - and it is more likely to do it, even when hitting non-vital parts of the body. - ability to stun/hurt opponent even when edge is stopped by armour (*) cuts including movement of the edge over the target, not just hitting it) In short - for the major part it looks like a question lethality vs. stopping power. Am I right or wrong (I do not fence nor ride a horse, so I cannot judge the text through my experience)?
I always wondered how thrusting from horseback worked, since that has always sounded like an easy way to lose your sword after running one enemy through. Very interesting!
Di Grassi (1575) specifically states that for cuts against soft material to be effective the sword must be drawn. In fact, his Wide & Low Guards are the end points of the cuts he uses. After a draw cut, one is in again a position to launch a quick thrust. He also cautions the student to not get in the habit of using cuts indiscriminately. I get the impression that the layered clothing of the late 16th century provided a fair amount of protection from edge blows hence di Grassi's emphasis on the thrust. Also, di Grassi considered the thrust to be much more dangerous than the cut. One *must* use a parry combined with a void to defend against the thrust. The counter attack is made only when the body is off line & the incoming thrust has been set, or beaten, aside. Note: the voids gain ground on the enemy who gets a nasty surprise right at the end of his attack.
I would be extremely interested to hear opinions on tip cuts. Another thing I'm trying to figure out are swords like the Katzbalger (and to a limited extent some traditional Khandas) - these swords have relatively blunt tips and I find it hard to imagine why someone would sacrifice thrusting ability in a design (especially as it seems so unnecessary). I recently saw a Katzbalger and noted that the taper continued to the tip - so it might produce a very broad tip-cut. However, I'm not sure that this guess of mine makes any sense - It is a desperate attempt to find some rationalisation for these relatively unpointed tips found on some swords.
Jonas Weselake-George I think that is completely correct - these types of sword enable you to cut very well with the very end of the weapon, which essentially increases your cutting reach. These swords therefore sometimes have a longer effective cutting reach than pointy swords that are much longer.
I don't think you sacrifice ability to thrust with katzbalger. Thrust injury from catzbalger have more cut-like form, but you can still use advantage of thrust atack geometry if needed. Thus they were used to slaughter pikemens at short distance where they were not able to react fast enough, coz you don't risk being stucked in opponents death body and you can continue swinging.
Thrusts- Advantages: quick, easy(ish), high likelihood of serious injury to opponent Disadvantage: doesn't usually end a fight quickly, you are somewhat vulnerable while in the thrust Cuts- Advantages: natural motions, powerful, debilitating, can end a fight real quick-like, typically less vulnerable while cutting Disadvantages: usually slower, clothing/equipment can resist it, edge alignment is critical to get cuts to be efficient In conclusion: use cuts and thrusts at appropriate times, while being mindful of defense; as it doesn't matter who "wins" the immediate fight, if you both end up dying because of that fight.
Very interesting tactical observation. This is why arrows penetrate so well. It also makes me wonder why you read so many descriptions of sharpening to a razor edge on sabers, katanas and other edged weapons.
Another fact about thrust vs. cuts is that with a thrust you are more likely to puncture organs and major blood vessels. Even without any type of armor the human body has natural defenses from cutting wounds i.e. bones. Whereas great force is need to cut, or rather hack, through a bone, a thrust can slide over or under a bone or even penetrate clean through bone. I almost never use cuts as a means of attack but rather to parry or even to just distract. Then follow up with a thrust to the face, neck or torso.
I knew someone who was trained by Dr. Maung Gyi (a true Gurka). If memory serves correctly, he told me Dr. Gyi preferred the straighter bladed kukri rather than one with a dramatic curve, because the dramatic curve made it harder to thrust. (I have been told the national archives have a picture of Dr. Gyi working to remove his knife from an enemy's skull -it took him some time to get it out, but he liked the knife and didn't want to leave it there.)
Another thing to think about on top of surface area is the lack of bone protection. The human bone structure is quite good at protecting vital organs against cuts (the ribcage/shoulder blades). Thrusts on the other hand have far less bone to have to worry about in the attack. The ribcage, while offering protection against cuts, doesn't do all that much about thrusts (having large gaps and all).
The first time I shot a deer I tried to thrust my hunting knife in its ribcage, going with the ribs, simulating a thrust into a human body; It went in so easily, I was amazed; a small child could easily have done it. I tried to lop the head off a cow we were butchering with my machete. It entered the throat, then went 3/4 way into the spine; the second chop finished the job. ...for what it is worth.
@@sincitycapital I had a perfect test medium, to gain real world knowledge... and that is crazy. Would you rather the deer be alive? Go be naive someplace else.
That's called pressure : force/area. It's also what makes the difference between a blunt weapon and a sharp or pointy one (why you don't penetrate with a mace or a log, but do with a sword or spear). Each surface can only withstand a certain amount of pressure.
The Lieutenant going ahead of his men sounds like the famous Han Solo scene in Star Wars. As for the poor impaled mutineer, his situation is precisely how I imagined a "run through" from the pirate books of my childhood.
also, wounding in a battle is more useful, as you meed some people to help the person, this is true even today, wounding removes 3 people from the battle. also, cuts have a huge advantage in a battle, as gaping bleeding wounds with the person screaming and moaning do more to scare the opponent. piercing wounds are more effective for killing but not nearly as gruesome as cutting wounds. ultimately the side which managed to get the other side to run or retreat won the battle, and scaring soldiers, especially inexperienced conscripts, will get the battle over faster.
Generally true, see tales of snipers firing an immobilising shot to draw his target's comrades into the open. However as a part of doctrine it has come unstuck when fighting against fanatical warriors who care nothing for their or their fellow's lives. You can see the tension throughout history between the stopping shot and the handy quick shooting firearm.
Cuts is a very general description there are many different types of cuts that can be utilized for many applications. For instance a draw cut can be, as you describe drawn across the body drawing away from body; however there are draw cuts that you can achieve through a thrusting motion, As an application of such a technique you can use these cuts to arm in order to disarm your opponent. I am sure you are aware of these examples I merely would have enjoyed an explanation in this video. Thanks
***** You forget thrust cuts but I do agree the major difference is dynamic pressure verses none dynamic pressure. However if you limit yourself to two kinds of cuts then you can only get to a certain skill level before plateauing. Masters of old did not limit themselves which is why they literally wrote the book on specific styles. You have evidence of this in the volume of differing styles. I would warn you to never limit yourself and always grow. Remember every technique works, not every technique works 100% of the time.
A problem I see in thrusting is that although it enters the body more easily it leaves a smaller wound. (except for your using a blade 2 inches wide) Therfore it's chances are smaller to place a wound that would keep your enemy from fighting back.
Hi Matt, I was interested to hear about the sword running all the way through some poor unfortunate gent. - there's at least one account of it happening with a lance too. In Frederick Coleman's book "With Cavalry in 1915", he has the following account; "A non-commissioned officer of the 9th ran his lance full through a German officer, who, thus impaled, struck at the trooper and severed his hand at the wrist."
Because thrusts are, if the timing's right, absolutely devastating, could you perhaps make a video of how to properly thrust with a few different sword designs? I would really like to see how it's properly done with a saber and perhaps a rapier if it's feasible. Cheers!
You can cut and parry simultaneously or in the same movement, thrusting trap's your blade leaving you with little deference until you recover. Which highlights my point thrusting slows your tempo, which is a disadvantageous thing in it's own right.
I've often wondered if the thrust-centric cavalry sword isn't something that the higher-ups preferred but which the average cavalry trooper (who has a bit more of an interest in his own self-preservation) wouldn't. It just seems there are so many things that can go wrong even if you perform a thrust from horseback at speed correctly. In addition to the issues you've mentioned with breaking your wrist/hand or losing your weapon, it seems like there's a large potential to dislocate your arm or dehorse yourself, say if the person being stabbed falls or was moving the wrong way. In that case the sword knot could actually exacerbate the problem. Sorry to veer off-topic a bit, looking forward to the next video!
Not only that but my normal self preservation instinct would probably be to try and use my sword to block my opponent blade rather then just extending point to run him through. Because what is exactly stopping him from chopping my head off or running me through? Unless you are thrusting at someone on foot, but again cutting seems like it would be way safer. It does kinda make sense that cavalry swords are longer and heavier. I am actually hoping Matt does a video about sword use on horseback because that is not a topic that people cover much
Surely, if someone is unarmored, it must be extremely painful to be beaten at with a sword. The blunt trauma of a sword swing that doesn't cut will probably be able to break most bones in that case.
I also wonder how often spears and lances on horseback were more than one-shot weapons? It seems to me that in real combat, spears/lances would most often be lost on the first successful hit. But perhaps here as well there is a clever lancer's technique I'm unaware of.
The problem of trusth vs cut in a medical stand point. You can survive a trust without major reduction in your combat abilitys for a few minutes, a cut into the arm, leg, at the rght angle disable the hand/leg, etc, and well if you cut the abdomen of someone and his insides go outside its over. If you trust kidney, liver or abdominal cava, its over in 30-100s.
Generally, rule of thumb. I trust a man who says he killed a man at the same time admitting another man saved his life. Generally when people lie they don't admit their own weakness. But that may just be my way of thinking.
Someone mentioning a something "big" while trying to make it seem smaller by mentioning a perceived flaw or weakness is a good measure to see if they are lying. Adding something as contrast to the big thing they are presenting makes it seem smaller and people tend to accept that "truth" more. It is a basic strategy to deceive or manipulate others, and can work, but can be a clue someone is lying to you
Slashes are harder to dodge, easier to block. Thrusts are easier to dodge, harder to block. Combining the two can confuse your opponent. Another point which was not mentioned in this video is the momentum of the attacker at the end of the strike. Because a slash is a circular motion as supposed to a thrust which is a straight, directional motion, you can slash more frequently than you can thrust. It also means more chance of you blocking after a missed strike. Both have its uses in an engagement.
+elmohead Because a thrust is typically held closer to the front-centre of the body, doesn't require extraneous movement and can move the tip of the sword a huge distance with a comparatively small movement of the wrist or hand, I'd argue its much easier to feint with a thrust than with a cut...
With the sheer adrenaline of being in a large battle (especially as an infantryman) I would expect that sword thrusts penetrating to the hilt were not at all uncommon...
So then that brings up the question of why cutting swords were still so prevalent for so long, and why there were so many styles of cutting swords across so many cultures and times?
I don't see anything controversial here. But what worries me is that some people take the cut/thrust distinction to mean that there's no need to sharpen the edges of any weapon which is _primariliy_ a thruster. It kills me how some people think it's a zero-sum game, and thus believe that something like a straight cavalry saber (or a commando dagger, as I clumsily rant about elsewhere) *ought* to have dull edges.
I would think that mentally, a thrust would be much more disheartening in battle than the average cut. Where as you can typically see a cut for what it is, I think there would be a mental hesitation thinking on what organs -vital or not- were pierced with the blade.
Many times in your videos I see you struggling to find the correct term about force distribution over a small or large area. This term is pressure. You can say ie that the same force results in much more pressure in case of a thrust, since the area is so small and Pressure=Force/Area.
+George Menoutis Thanks, I am aware of this, but I am also struggling to explain things in a way that will be most easily understood by most of the audience. The word pressure, while it may have a specific definition in physics, introduces confusion in a general English language context.
I would like to see a video that either backs up Lars Andersens archery video. Or discredits it. Some of it sends like it can be true. But there are parts that just seem wrong to me. Like the speed shooting. It seems to me you would just loose out on penitration power.
What is more incapaciating? -I'm not talking about leathality here, but about preventing the enemy to strike back. I heared both of people fighting after being stabbed multiple times, even of somone walking into a blade and killing his attacker but also of people dropping after being stabbed by a tiny knife.
Thrusts to the extremities rarely connect, so you need a thrust to the torso, practically speaking. It does not insta-kill. Cut to the arm or to the head can end the fight right there. Judging from what I read about saber duels in my country, saber cuts are not very lethal. They look scary, with lots of blood and all, but people tend to survive. Warhammer spikes were banned, though. Too many people died.
edi A blow the brain, neck, spine, hand, or major muscle damage in the legs are probably the fastest reliable ways to end a fight. A thrust to the heart would be good as well, but it wont drop everyone instantly, only most people.
I would guess that an advantage of cutting is that, if you do happen to penetrate with the weapon to sufficient depth, it is much easier to damage something important. Also, your points on....points....bring up an advantage of blunt weapons. Cloth, leather, chainmail, helmets, etc, cannot sufficiently protect you from a weapon that doesn't rely on penetrating skin.
But I think if you have to fight an animal like a tiger/lion/cheetah/Jaguar/wolf/hyena/gorilla/chimpanzee/bear etc it makes sense to repeatedly apply cuts to vulnerable areas before going for the final thrust. If we go for the thrust straightaway it may give us a fatal bite before dying. However while fighting a crocodile or an alligator it's better to poke one of its eyes & scoot. While fighting a python or an anaconda it's better to poke both the eyes by thrusting & then thrusting in the neck repeatedly.
there are some men from south america, during the colonial age. who would engage in duels using a knife in one hand and a thick cloak wrap around the other hand as a shield.
yeah thrust can give more damage, have more reach and its faster...but its really risky thing to do. You can't immediately block your enemy attack..and like this guy mentioned, you have a chance to disarm yourself after performing it or your blade can get stuck on the dead body, making you an easy prey for the next guy. so stay safe and continue cutting.
thrust is more deadly but require more skill to use. and its harder to land on small moving target like arm and hand. cut is more nature to human. and easier to use against small target like wrist and fingers.
The thrust has always been deadly. If you puncture a hole in the heart, liver or brain, these usually prove to be quickly fatal. It is not always a sure thing but usually the case. But that is not to argue that samurai swords are deadly too.
In the time period we are talking about penetrating wounds to the torso had an extremely high mortality rate. That being said, many penetrating wounds did not immediately incapacitate their victim--of course some did. An effective slashing wound could well have taken a man out of the fight immediately even without proving fatal. For instance, a cut to the forearm flexors could disarm a man. I have to believe that a sharp katana could be very effective at rendering a man incapable of continuing the fight whether he were mortally wounded or not. I am sure armor and even clothing were an important variable as well.
Also to point out that against opponents in full plate armour (such as knights), thrusts can take advantage of gaps in armour whereas cuts would be virtually useless.
Question - Do you feel that there is less energy expended thrusting vs. slashing? EG: Which would serve better in a prolonged fight if given the option to use either form?
I'm not Mr. Easton, obviously, but I, personally, lean more toward the thrust in this regard. I've found that consecutively giving very forceful swings- necessary for any cut to do critical damage to one's enemies- gets very tiring, very quickly. Now, multiple thrusts applied with the same great force would be likely to make one tired, as well, perhaps even more-so- however, since a thrust may penetrate a body more easily than a swing at the same speed, one need not augment it with great vigor to gain the desired effect. This, of course, is just my personal take one particular element of the hypothetical. I am not professional swords-person, and there are many other factors that would need to be accounted for. Every battle is at least slightly different.
+k1lkenny That is like saying that because Malaria is the biggest killing disease in Africa, hippos are not dangerous. The reasons that fatalities rocketed in the 16th and 17th centuries is because duels rocketed in the 16th and 17th centuries! There were hardly any duels recorded in the 14th and 15th centuries, but in the 16th century it became far more socially acceptable to wear swords and dueling became far more common. By the 18th century duels became far less common and most were conducted with pistols. So I think you are using the wrong evidence, regardless of whether the conclusion is correct or not.
Well it wasn't as much my own conclusion as one taken from a study (Can't recall the name though). Maybe my statement was a bit broad. Studies have shown that in comparison, duels with Rapiers more often led to a fatal outcome than duels with other weapons. And yes dueling would become way more widespread during the period and therefor also lead to more fatalities but that wasn't really the point (heh) but rather the likelihood of dying was also increased due to the use of thrusting weapons.
As a kid who sword fought with socks against his friends I found that a thrust tended to be harder to defend against than a cut. This has seemed to be true even against opponents who are more skilled. Any one else of or against this opinion?
Timothy Heimbach With the floppy weapons kids tend to use for play, yeah it is. Parrying a thrust isn't much different then certain cuts when you have an actual weapon though. :)
You say that more force is transferred when a smaller portion of the blade connects. That's not technically true: it would be a greater amount of pressure, but the same amount of force.
You've got to know when to thrust 'em
(When to thrust 'em)
Know when to cut them
(when to cut them)
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
You never count your wounds
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done.
Lieutenant G.F. Money sounds like an awesome British rapper.
+GrimBrotherIV I had the same thought.
Yeah he does :D
Yeah that's what I was thinking
Leaving his blade embedded in an enemie's chest would definitely enhance his "street cred."
* "Leftenant" G. F. Money
Here Matt, have my point. I thrust you with it.
Drum and symbols sound ;-)
Badum yin yang? Like that? ;)
scholagladiatoria
*cymbals
TrueFireAnt *simblz
Preferabubbly NotRealNamearoo *thimbles
Well, at first I wasn't convinced, but you do have a _point_ there.
Get it? Heh heh... heh... ahem...
...okay, I'll _cut_ it out.
No, don't cut - _thrust_.
Thanks, nice video. The physics of the concept you are talking about is pressure. Pressure (measured in Pascals or "P", "kP", "MP" etc) applied on an object is force (in Newtons) divided by surface area (in square meters). Cheers
"The edge wounds, the point kills."- Roman soldier's adage.
The real advantage of thrusts is that they normally hit a much more vulnerable area when compared to cuts.
When sparring I usually get caught with cuts along my arms, shoulders, legs etc.
Thrusts usually get you in the torso, around the heart, liver, lungs etc.
Good point, I don't think I've ever thought about that before.
Hm...that's definitely an advantage, but I dunno that I would call it "the real advantage."
CanadaMMA More lethal points? Yes for sure. However forearms, hand's, and thigh cuts could take your opponent out of the fight nearly instantly.
A thrust to the vitals will not instantly drop every person, only some of them.
CanadaMMA My two cents are this: Thrusts are ideal in late military application (musket line warfare) or civilian application (duels, etc.). However, thrusts are in no way ideal for a military melee situation. A thrust, especially one delivered with a specialized trusting weapon, binds your weapon up and tangles it for far longer than the fast, flowing and transitory cut. Therefore, cuts are better in war as they have less potential to expose you, the fighter, to a strike by a third party while you extricate your weapon from your victim.
VelmiVelkiZrut
Gladi, spear, arrows, and many other types of weapons would disagree. :P
It all depends on what you're best with, and what you're fighting.
"There are times to thrust and times to cut." Words to live by.
I take George Silver's position on the matter of thrust vs. cut. The "perfect" and/or "true" fight must include both. The reason is simple: There are times when a thrust will land, and times when a cut will land, but very few times when either a thrust OR a cut will land. Even in instances where either is viable, one or the other will usually be safer for the man delivering it. The best one to use is the one that provides the safest means of inflicting of a wound in a given circumstance. Which one kills or incapacitates faster or more reliably is irrelevant, as one must fight until one's opponent is no longer able to fight, and no opportunity to wound him without exposing oneself to danger should be missed, regardless of the type of wound to be inflicted.
Thrust vs. cut?
That's like saying "bacon vs. eggs" to me.
I don't want to see either one without the other.
Britt Gardner I also believe that cuts and thrusts both have their virtues, but very often you have a choice of which to deliver - imagine the opponent cuts to your left-side neck and you guard it with inside ward (AKA quarte or Guard 1). At this moment you have various ripostes available to you, including a variety of cuts and two sensible types of thrust. Which one you choose to do can be a result of a number of tactical factors, but one of those might be the potential effect on the target - a thrust in the neck will certainly enter the body more easily than a cut in the head, especially if the opponent is wearing a hat.
scholagladiatoria
I actually agree with you 100%, here. In situations like that I suppose it becomes mostly a matter of discretion and what you've personally drilled the most. In certain systems, I'd even drill the thrust to the exclusion of the cut for this riposte, since, when under stress, we tend to default to what we've done the most repetitions of in training.
For instance, in English sabre systems, for the sake of historical accuracy, there is a clear advantage in practicing a thrust to the neck in the situation you describe. It's not at all unlikely that your opponent is a Sikh or some such wearing a mail shirt and several wraps of turban. So, if I had been an officer drilling for that sort of situation, I'd have probably practiced my riposte as a neck thrust, myself.
Context makes all the difference, even and perhaps especially in how we train.
Thats why i like spears, poke em from far away :D
Spears are the shit from what I understand from sword practitioners
@@vytas5584 They're also easier to use than swords. Just point and poke
Cuts are harder to dodge, thrusts are harder to parry.
Again, depends on situation. To be precise, Cuts GENERALLY are harder to dodge, thrust are generally harder to parry/block/stop.
I approve and agree with the video, personally preferring thrusts before cuts most of the times myself. Though flexibility should not be underestimated and cutting has its places. There are plenty of places like the wrists, throat or back of the lower legs that would neutralize an opponent very quickly.
Gotta love the way he says "Okay".
I would add that the "human dimension" is being over looked a bit here. We are talking about the mechanics of the weapon but not really the effects of the wound on the human body. A puncture wound, especially in the torso, tends to put a person into almost immediate shock. That incapacitates them if not immediately, then certainly very quickly. Here's some anecdotal evidence.... Many people are afraid of a needle... but not a blade. I believe this is an evolutionary behavior. Our bodies know that penetration is much more likely to damage an internal organ than a slice or a chop.
This is why the Romans moved from a slashing sword to a thrusting sword. The Romans' great strength was recognising superior technology when they invaded a new land. After they invaded Hispania they realised how effective the local thrusting sword was. The Romans noted that while their slashing swords could inflict terrible-looking and very bloody wounds, they weren't neccessarily fatal - whereas the thrusting swords the locals used were nearly always fatal if they penetrated the abdominal cavity - and so the Roman Gladius came into being.
The roman legionaries were basically copied from the Iberian Scutari, down to the pila. It's much easier to fight in units with thrusting weapons because you basically create a wall of points and if you crash in to that you're essentially going to die.
See hoplites, pikemen, Roman legionaries, etc.
+crfrank2010 For all that, though, the Romans kept cutting edges on their swords, and practiced cuts alongside of thrusts in practice.
However, the Gladius was not, strictly speaking, a thrusting sword- it was dual-purpose. As Silver said, there is no perfect fight without both cut and thrust.
+Al M it was primarily used for thrusting though
+Sparky Cat But they still got destroyed by barbarians,especially Thracians and Dacians.Speed and khukri-like weapons,along with fearlessness made it very easy for them to defeat the Romans because they could go through their defenses.Dont forget cavalry,something the Romans were always mediocre or even worse at.The Schythian people(including the mentioned Thracians and Dacians)would just shoot them with arrow and use riders to pepper them with shots or just charge into them
Nothing likes watching a video about men getting run through than at breakfast. I feel revived and will start my day.
If you look at Greek, balkan and turkish clothes of 1700 to 1900 you will notice either thick cloth or many layers of cloth, and this was to provide some protection against cuts and trusts from blades. Traditional clothes at that area are a form of cheap armor. I will gather some more informantion about this and i aill make areply video in the near future.
Please do, I did not know this!
Hey you're the guy that makes shields :D why won't you gift one to Matt as well?
About that point, I believe that to be totally true across all of history, just like native Americans, Europeans and Chinese all used cotton or other fabrics as armor, and linothorax was after all made of linen.
Kill4Dill
Yeah, but Matt doesn't do test videos, unlike Skall.
Kill4Dill
if Matt needs a shield he can just ask my to send him one!
JustGrowingUp Yeah but Matt does melee fights with multiple participants.
***** I really hope he sees this message :P anyway I have much respect for the effort you take in making all those cool shields :) the celtic one was REALLY GOOD!
This is something we cover in they style of knife combatives that I train in. Even a modern denim jacket can offer considerable protection especially from a folding knife. We train to thrust so as to enter the target and cut on retraction with a coma cut. That is turning the blade to produced a large comma, as in punctuation, shaped cut. Try this next time you're cutting if you don't already it's an impressive wound.
I'm reminded a little of Miyamoto Musashi's commentary in the Book of Five Rings about what he refers to as the difference between a "cut" and a "slash". It's been long enough that I can't recall which was which off the top of my head, but the gist of it was that there were poorly struck cuts that only lightly injured (commonly given by inexperienced swordsmen), to be sharply (no pun intended) contrasted with properly delivered cuts that actually gave deep, disabling, killing injuries.
I also remember hearing about several cases of people being thrust through multiple times with poorer effect than a well-struck cutting blow, but I think most of these occurred with blades that were thin enough to actually fail to hit anything particularly critical to immediate life.
when the blade does not hit a larger blood vesel or takes a good hit in an organ which is well suportet with blood.
e.g. When the blades run through your lung you can still fight. You should keep attention to your other half of the lung.
When a cut goes deep enough in the the body it is more likely that essential parts will be cut.
Good cuts on the inner side of the arms or legs sever the ateries in there.
But a thrust penetrates further with the same amount of force than a cut.
I think in earlier vids Matt mentioned it also depends on context as you have a longer time removing the thrust strike into an opponent and if you are in a multi-opponent fight or on horseback, you are left in a disadvantage without weapon or protection unless you also had a shield/buckler/another knife-sword.
Another poster was correct in trying to slice wound first so the thrust can be quick to an open spot less protected and not grabbed deflected and then you are less exposed while quickly retracting the blade.
I think in several historical manuscripts situations are described where either the cut or the thrust is preferred to do. E.g. in Peter von Danzig Codex.44.A.8 a very general rule is written in context of a Zornhau technique which describes this point very clearly for me: "...thus that you do not hew when you should stab, and not slice when you should hew, and not stab when you should slice." It's a simple thing to think of situations out of which it just makes sense to follow-up with either a cut or a thrust, but not the other.
It's certainly true that thrusts take less force/effort to wound with than cuts. However, powerful cuts have more potential for quick or immediate incapacitation than powerful thrusts. You have lots of historical and more-recent accounts of thrusts failing to incapacitate. Even getting stabbed in the heart or face/head doesn't necessarily drop a person instantly. Decapitation, on the other hand, does. A deep cut to the head almost always stops a fight. Cutting off an arm or hand at least makes it extremely difficult for the opponent to prevail, and removing a leg or foot even more so. George Silver was right about this.
I own and read through this book, and if one selects examples objectively, the conclusion is that: in a war skirmish on horse or foot the best line of action with a sword, straight or curved, is of multiple Cuts, due to the fluidity of movement and the natural clubbing instinct for that, over the acquired thrusting, stabbing motion. Thrusting is used only when finishing an opponent off in an one on one encounter.
talking about clothing... garments were made out of hemp before cotton was favoured... hemp would be very hard to cut, possibly the hardest natural fibre/material to cut. I wish we could be allowed to grow hemp for it's manufacturing properties. (at the least) I believe the only reason cannabis is illegal is due the corporate fear of cottage industry.
+Decay fact is you can only get stoned from smoking CANNABIS, canvas is made from HEMP completely different plants. But don't feel bad, ignorance of this fact has been with us since the 1930 campaign by Dupont & co to destroy their competition. Fact : you can not get stoned form HEMP, you can however smoke it & get a headache if you choose ignorance. If you choose to recognise HEMP for it's manufacturing applications you can build walls, make fine paper that has been used for such since ... since writing began, make sails & the best rope money can buy, you can also feed the world on it's gruel which is full of cannabinoids charged with doing your body good... I hear HEMP seed makes excellent bread. & while you grow it ; it removes carbon CO2 from our atmosphere injecting fresh oxygen... I could go on but that is what google is for. Oh & those walls we could build using it... harden stronger than concrete & ... while they harden into rock they convert ever more CO2 locking the CO2 into rock & out of our atmosphere.
+Danny O'Moore interesting Danny. I once looked into growing hemp for seed and fiber but it is very strictly regulated in my country because of its wrongful association with cannabis. Also have heard raw silk was almost uncuttable/unpierceable in many circumstances.
awesome, YT has decided to start suggesting some of your old vids I haven't watched yet! :)
I like your comments on the disadvantages of cuts and wonder why some HEMA instructors favor the cut and completely dismiss the push or slice.
Just from reading "Swordsmen":
- In general, british cavalry seems to have much higher preference for cut(*) than thrust. Despite (in case of heavy cavalry sword) worse design and universal complain regarding sharpness of their sword compared to those of their Indian opponents.
Key advantages seem to be:
- it is easier/more natural to cut
- cut is more likely to hit; if given with force, it can even overcome proper guard
- less likely to leave you disarmed (proper thrusting technique may be difficult when "fellow" do not cooperate)
- more likely to incapacitate opponent either by stunning him or but destroying/damaging body parts - and it is more likely to do it, even when hitting non-vital parts of the body.
- ability to stun/hurt opponent even when edge is stopped by armour
(*) cuts including movement of the edge over the target, not just hitting it)
In short - for the major part it looks like a question lethality vs. stopping power.
Am I right or wrong (I do not fence nor ride a horse, so I cannot judge the text through my experience)?
Mungo Yes I think you have most of the key factors listed there.
I think cutting is generally better for hitting their extremities and thrusting better for their vital areas.
I always wondered how thrusting from horseback worked, since that has always sounded like an easy way to lose your sword after running one enemy through. Very interesting!
Di Grassi (1575) specifically states that for cuts against soft material to be effective the sword must be drawn. In fact, his Wide & Low Guards are the end points of the cuts he uses. After a draw cut, one is in again a position to launch a quick thrust. He also cautions the student to not get in the habit of using cuts indiscriminately. I get the impression that the layered clothing of the late 16th century provided a fair amount of protection from edge blows hence di Grassi's emphasis on the thrust.
Also, di Grassi considered the thrust to be much more dangerous than the cut. One *must* use a parry combined with a void to defend against the thrust. The counter attack is made only when the body is off line & the incoming thrust has been set, or beaten, aside. Note: the voids gain ground on the enemy who gets a nasty surprise right at the end of his attack.
I would be extremely interested to hear opinions on tip cuts. Another thing I'm trying to figure out are swords like the Katzbalger (and to a limited extent some traditional Khandas) - these swords have relatively blunt tips and I find it hard to imagine why someone would sacrifice thrusting ability in a design (especially as it seems so unnecessary). I recently saw a Katzbalger and noted that the taper continued to the tip - so it might produce a very broad tip-cut. However, I'm not sure that this guess of mine makes any sense - It is a desperate attempt to find some rationalisation for these relatively unpointed tips found on some swords.
Jonas Weselake-George I think that is completely correct - these types of sword enable you to cut very well with the very end of the weapon, which essentially increases your cutting reach. These swords therefore sometimes have a longer effective cutting reach than pointy swords that are much longer.
Thanks for the input. I'm glad that I now know at least a working theory for these swords now. :)
I don't think you sacrifice ability to thrust with katzbalger. Thrust injury from catzbalger have more cut-like form, but you can still use advantage of thrust atack geometry if needed. Thus they were used to slaughter pikemens at short distance where they were not able to react fast enough, coz you don't risk being stucked in opponents death body and you can continue swinging.
Thrusts-
Advantages: quick, easy(ish), high likelihood of serious injury to opponent
Disadvantage: doesn't usually end a fight quickly, you are somewhat vulnerable while in the thrust
Cuts-
Advantages: natural motions, powerful, debilitating, can end a fight real quick-like, typically less vulnerable while cutting
Disadvantages: usually slower, clothing/equipment can resist it, edge alignment is critical to get cuts to be efficient
In conclusion: use cuts and thrusts at appropriate times, while being mindful of defense; as it doesn't matter who "wins" the immediate fight, if you both end up dying because of that fight.
that is all that matters, if you must go to the grave, take your enemy with you, let tells of your ferocity long live your life.
I found this very interesting> I would like to learn more about the cavalry fencing as well. Well spoken.
It's amazing those blinds are unmarked with all the swords that get swung around.
Very interesting tactical observation. This is why arrows penetrate so well. It also makes me wonder why you read so many descriptions of sharpening to a razor edge on sabers, katanas and other edged weapons.
Are you still planning to do armour videos? Like with you wearing your suit of plate and telling us about it?
Another fact about thrust vs. cuts is that with a thrust you are more likely to puncture organs and major blood vessels. Even without any type of armor the human body has natural defenses from cutting wounds i.e. bones. Whereas great force is need to cut, or rather hack, through a bone, a thrust can slide over or under a bone or even penetrate clean through bone. I almost never use cuts as a means of attack but rather to parry or even to just distract. Then follow up with a thrust to the face, neck or torso.
I knew someone who was trained by Dr. Maung Gyi (a true Gurka). If memory serves correctly, he told me Dr. Gyi preferred the straighter bladed kukri rather than one with a dramatic curve, because the dramatic curve made it harder to thrust. (I have been told the national archives have a picture of Dr. Gyi working to remove his knife from an enemy's skull -it took him some time to get it out, but he liked the knife and didn't want to leave it there.)
Another thing to think about on top of surface area is the lack of bone protection. The human bone structure is quite good at protecting vital organs against cuts (the ribcage/shoulder blades). Thrusts on the other hand have far less bone to have to worry about in the attack. The ribcage, while offering protection against cuts, doesn't do all that much about thrusts (having large gaps and all).
3:01, same force, more pressure , P=F/A
The first time I shot a deer I tried to thrust my hunting knife in its ribcage, going with the ribs, simulating a thrust into a human body; It went in so easily, I was amazed; a small child could easily have done it.
I tried to lop the head off a cow we were butchering with my machete. It entered the throat, then went 3/4 way into the spine; the second chop finished the job.
...for what it is worth.
You're crazy as hell
@@sincitycapital I had a perfect test medium, to gain real world knowledge... and that is crazy. Would you rather the deer be alive?
Go be naive someplace else.
That's called pressure : force/area. It's also what makes the difference between a blunt weapon and a sharp or pointy one (why you don't penetrate with a mace or a log, but do with a sword or spear). Each surface can only withstand a certain amount of pressure.
The Lieutenant going ahead of his men sounds like the famous Han Solo scene in Star Wars.
As for the poor impaled mutineer, his situation is precisely how I imagined a "run through" from the pirate books of my childhood.
'Killing with the point lacks artistry" (Gurney Halleck, in "Dune").
also, wounding in a battle is more useful, as you meed some people to help the person, this is true even today, wounding removes 3 people from the battle. also, cuts have a huge advantage in a battle, as gaping bleeding wounds with the person screaming and moaning do more to scare the opponent. piercing wounds are more effective for killing but not nearly as gruesome as cutting wounds. ultimately the side which managed to get the other side to run or retreat won the battle, and scaring soldiers, especially inexperienced conscripts, will get the battle over faster.
Generally true, see tales of snipers firing an immobilising shot to draw his target's comrades into the open.
However as a part of doctrine it has come unstuck when fighting against fanatical warriors who care nothing for their or their fellow's lives.
You can see the tension throughout history between the stopping shot and the handy quick shooting firearm.
And then he lived on to be on Storage Hunters
lol and I actually know this reference!
Cuts is a very general description there are many different types of cuts that can be utilized for many applications. For instance a draw cut can be, as you describe drawn across the body drawing away from body; however there are draw cuts that you can achieve through a thrusting motion, As an application of such a technique you can use these cuts to arm in order to disarm your opponent. I am sure you are aware of these examples I merely would have enjoyed an explanation in this video. Thanks
***** You forget thrust cuts but I do agree the major difference is dynamic pressure verses none dynamic pressure. However if you limit yourself to two kinds of cuts then you can only get to a certain skill level before plateauing. Masters of old did not limit themselves which is why they literally wrote the book on specific styles. You have evidence of this in the volume of differing styles. I would warn you to never limit yourself and always grow. Remember every technique works, not every technique works 100% of the time.
A problem I see in thrusting is that although it enters the body more easily it leaves a smaller wound. (except for your using a blade 2 inches wide) Therfore it's chances are smaller to place a wound that would keep your enemy from fighting back.
Hi Matt, I was interested to hear about the sword running all the way through some poor unfortunate gent. - there's at least one account of it happening with a lance too. In Frederick Coleman's book "With Cavalry in 1915", he has the following account; "A non-commissioned officer of the 9th ran his lance full through a German officer, who, thus impaled, struck at the trooper and severed his hand at the wrist."
Lt. G. N. Money would be a good stage name for a rapper.
it might be useful to use the term 'pressure' in future videos talking about this kind of thing
Very good points about this force distribution. This is why a trident is also not a effective weapon to thrust with
Really? stand in front of a jabbing Trident and you can say when it starts to hurt.
TheBognordave I think he meant not as effective as single point thrusting weapons.
force per unit area is called stress, just to help you out when you try to describe force concentration
Because thrusts are, if the timing's right, absolutely devastating, could you perhaps make a video of how to properly thrust with a few different sword designs? I would really like to see how it's properly done with a saber and perhaps a rapier if it's feasible.
Cheers!
You can cut and parry simultaneously or in the same movement, thrusting trap's your blade leaving you with little deference until you recover. Which highlights my point thrusting slows your tempo, which is a disadvantageous thing in it's own right.
I've often wondered if the thrust-centric cavalry sword isn't something that the higher-ups preferred but which the average cavalry trooper (who has a bit more of an interest in his own self-preservation) wouldn't. It just seems there are so many things that can go wrong even if you perform a thrust from horseback at speed correctly. In addition to the issues you've mentioned with breaking your wrist/hand or losing your weapon, it seems like there's a large potential to dislocate your arm or dehorse yourself, say if the person being stabbed falls or was moving the wrong way. In that case the sword knot could actually exacerbate the problem.
Sorry to veer off-topic a bit, looking forward to the next video!
Not only that but my normal self preservation instinct would probably be to try and use my sword to block my opponent blade rather then just extending point to run him through. Because what is exactly stopping him from chopping my head off or running me through? Unless you are thrusting at someone on foot, but again cutting seems like it would be way safer. It does kinda make sense that cavalry swords are longer and heavier. I am actually hoping Matt does a video about sword use on horseback because that is not a topic that people cover much
Surely, if someone is unarmored, it must be extremely painful to be beaten at with a sword. The blunt trauma of a sword swing that doesn't cut will probably be able to break most bones in that case.
very good talk; very good hints, very good video.
There are some interesting parallels between cuts vs thrust and hollow points vs full metal jacket
I also wonder how often spears and lances on horseback were more than one-shot weapons? It seems to me that in real combat, spears/lances would most often be lost on the first successful hit. But perhaps here as well there is a clever lancer's technique I'm unaware of.
The problem of trusth vs cut in a medical stand point. You can survive a trust without major reduction in your combat abilitys for a few minutes, a cut into the arm, leg, at the rght angle disable the hand/leg, etc, and well if you cut the abdomen of someone and his insides go outside its over. If you trust kidney, liver or abdominal cava, its over in 30-100s.
Generally, rule of thumb. I trust a man who says he killed a man at the same time admitting another man saved his life. Generally when people lie they don't admit their own weakness.
But that may just be my way of thinking.
Someone mentioning a something "big" while trying to make it seem smaller by mentioning a perceived flaw or weakness is a good measure to see if they are lying. Adding something as contrast to the big thing they are presenting makes it seem smaller and people tend to accept that "truth" more. It is a basic strategy to deceive or manipulate others, and can work, but can be a clue someone is lying to you
Slashes are harder to dodge, easier to block. Thrusts are easier to dodge, harder to block. Combining the two can confuse your opponent.
Another point which was not mentioned in this video is the momentum of the attacker at the end of the strike. Because a slash is a circular motion as supposed to a thrust which is a straight, directional motion, you can slash more frequently than you can thrust. It also means more chance of you blocking after a missed strike.
Both have its uses in an engagement.
+elmohead Because a thrust is typically held closer to the front-centre of the body, doesn't require extraneous movement and can move the tip of the sword a huge distance with a comparatively small movement of the wrist or hand, I'd argue its much easier to feint with a thrust than with a cut...
With the sheer adrenaline of being in a large battle (especially as an infantryman) I would expect that sword thrusts penetrating to the hilt were not at all uncommon...
So then that brings up the question of why cutting swords were still so prevalent for so long, and why there were so many styles of cutting swords across so many cultures and times?
+Richie Demo I would be interested in knowing that answer too.
+Richie Demo I find that a lot of those were either in warmer climates or ares where steel was ridiculously expensive. Or to cut down peasants.
scholagladiatoria
3:30 "Sawing"?
I don't see anything controversial here.
But what worries me is that some people take the cut/thrust distinction to mean that there's no need to sharpen the edges of any weapon which is _primariliy_ a thruster.
It kills me how some people think it's a zero-sum game, and thus believe that something like a straight cavalry saber (or a commando dagger, as I clumsily rant about elsewhere) *ought* to have dull edges.
I would think that mentally, a thrust would be much more disheartening in battle than the average cut. Where as you can typically see a cut for what it is, I think there would be a mental hesitation thinking on what organs -vital or not- were pierced with the blade.
I'm just glad to have made contact, whatever I'm able to get.
Thank you! Again I'm just glad to have made contact.
Many times in your videos I see you struggling to find the correct term about force distribution over a small or large area. This term is pressure. You can say ie that the same force results in much more pressure in case of a thrust, since the area is so small and Pressure=Force/Area.
+George Menoutis Thanks, I am aware of this, but I am also struggling to explain things in a way that will be most easily understood by most of the audience. The word pressure, while it may have a specific definition in physics, introduces confusion in a general English language context.
+scholagladiatoria I'm glad that you make the terms simple, lots of us in HEMA don't have English as first language.
I would like to see a video that either backs up Lars Andersens archery video. Or discredits it. Some of it sends like it can be true. But there are parts that just seem wrong to me. Like the speed shooting. It seems to me you would just loose out on penitration power.
What is more incapaciating? -I'm not talking about leathality here, but about preventing the enemy to strike back.
I heared both of people fighting after being stabbed multiple times, even of somone walking into a blade and killing his attacker but also of people dropping after being stabbed by a tiny knife.
Thrusts to the extremities rarely connect, so you need a thrust to the torso, practically speaking. It does not insta-kill. Cut to the arm or to the head can end the fight right there.
Judging from what I read about saber duels in my country, saber cuts are not very lethal. They look scary, with lots of blood and all, but people tend to survive. Warhammer spikes were banned, though. Too many people died.
bakters What is "my country", if I am allowed to ask? I haven't seen any spiked warhammers in real life, unless you count the luzerner hammer.
Knocking people out or breaking their fingers.
edi A blow the brain, neck, spine, hand, or major muscle damage in the legs are probably the fastest reliable ways to end a fight. A thrust to the heart would be good as well, but it wont drop everyone instantly, only most people.
I would guess that an advantage of cutting is that, if you do happen to penetrate with the weapon to sufficient depth, it is much easier to damage something important. Also, your points on....points....bring up an advantage of blunt weapons. Cloth, leather, chainmail, helmets, etc, cannot sufficiently protect you from a weapon that doesn't rely on penetrating skin.
But I think if you have to fight an animal like a tiger/lion/cheetah/Jaguar/wolf/hyena/gorilla/chimpanzee/bear etc it makes sense to repeatedly apply cuts to vulnerable areas before going for the final thrust. If we go for the thrust straightaway it may give us a fatal bite before dying. However while fighting a crocodile or an alligator it's better to poke one of its eyes & scoot. While fighting a python or an anaconda it's better to poke both the eyes by thrusting & then thrusting in the neck repeatedly.
there are some men from south america, during the colonial age. who would engage in duels using a knife in one hand and a thick cloak wrap around the other hand as a shield.
Does it NEVER stop raining where you live, or do you just tend to make videos on rainy days?
+CountArtha Why do you think it is raining?
+scholagladiatoria The background noise definitely sounded like rain falling outside.
+scholagladiatoria
It wouldn't be Britain otherwise.
+Bob “Robert” Bob True.
yeah thrust can give more damage, have more reach and its faster...but its really risky thing to do. You can't immediately block your enemy attack..and like this guy mentioned, you have a chance to disarm yourself after performing it or your blade can get stuck on the dead body, making you an easy prey for the next guy. so stay safe and continue cutting.
Force doesn't depend on surface area. The pressure, however does
4:07 Lt G Money? is this a book of historical rap battles? :P
thrust is more deadly but require more skill to use. and its harder to land on small moving target like arm and hand. cut is more nature to human. and easier to use against small target like wrist and fingers.
***** lollol
***** wasn't a cut broke the matts finger?
Brilliant video. Thanks!
" Ah hah. Ah hah"- Thrusting Man in Monty Python the Holy Grail
thrusts are much harder to defend too, you eider avoid it or have to hit against it. A cut you only need to position your blade orthogonally to it.
Loved the video, thanks a lot.
Am I right in thinking that a thrust is much harder to block or parry than a slash? and this is why Rapiers were designed to emphasise thrusting ?
pressure. The word you're looking for is pressure. ;)
Two people are really love their katana...
Pointing out a point about giving point.
The thrust has always been deadly. If you puncture a hole in the heart, liver or brain, these usually prove to be quickly fatal. It is not always a sure thing but usually the case. But that is not to argue that samurai swords are deadly too.
In the time period we are talking about penetrating wounds to the torso had an extremely high mortality rate. That being said, many penetrating wounds did not immediately incapacitate their victim--of course some did. An effective slashing wound could well have taken a man out of the fight immediately even without proving fatal. For instance, a cut to the forearm flexors could disarm a man. I have to believe that a sharp katana could be very effective at rendering a man incapable of continuing the fight whether he were mortally wounded or not. I am sure armor and even clothing were an important variable as well.
If the contact area between sword and target is too large, it is about time to sharpen your sword I'd say.
Also to point out that against opponents in full plate armour (such as knights), thrusts can take advantage of gaps in armour whereas cuts would be virtually useless.
There's no artistry to killing with the tip.
Question - Do you feel that there is less energy expended thrusting vs. slashing? EG: Which would serve better in a prolonged fight if given the option to use either form?
I'm not Mr. Easton, obviously, but I, personally, lean more toward the thrust in this regard. I've found that consecutively giving very forceful swings- necessary for any cut to do critical damage to one's enemies- gets very tiring, very quickly. Now, multiple thrusts applied with the same great force would be likely to make one tired, as well, perhaps even more-so- however, since a thrust may penetrate a body more easily than a swing at the same speed, one need not augment it with great vigor to gain the desired effect.
This, of course, is just my personal take one particular element of the hypothetical. I am not professional swords-person, and there are many other factors that would need to be accounted for. Every battle is at least slightly different.
Another advantage of thrusts is being able to hit through small gaps in heavy armor whereas cuts wouldn't be able to harm the person.
With the introduction of the Rapier in Europe fatal outcomes of duels actually sky rocketed. So indeed, the thrust is certainly more deadly.
+k1lkenny That is like saying that because Malaria is the biggest killing disease in Africa, hippos are not dangerous. The reasons that fatalities rocketed in the 16th and 17th centuries is because duels rocketed in the 16th and 17th centuries! There were hardly any duels recorded in the 14th and 15th centuries, but in the 16th century it became far more socially acceptable to wear swords and dueling became far more common. By the 18th century duels became far less common and most were conducted with pistols. So I think you are using the wrong evidence, regardless of whether the conclusion is correct or not.
Well it wasn't as much my own conclusion as one taken from a study (Can't recall the name though). Maybe my statement was a bit broad. Studies have shown that in comparison, duels with Rapiers more often led to a fatal outcome than duels with other weapons. And yes dueling would become way more widespread during the period and therefor also lead to more fatalities but that wasn't really the point (heh) but rather the likelihood of dying was also increased due to the use of thrusting weapons.
As a kid who sword fought with socks against his friends I found that a thrust tended to be harder to defend against than a cut. This has seemed to be true even against opponents who are more skilled. Any one else of or against this opinion?
Timothy Heimbach With the floppy weapons kids tend to use for play, yeah it is. Parrying a thrust isn't much different then certain cuts when you have an actual weapon though. :)
Cuts for limbs and head, thrusts for torso and maybe head.
You say that more force is transferred when a smaller portion of the blade connects. That's not technically true: it would be a greater amount of pressure, but the same amount of force.
+Christopher Knorr True, but I hope the meaning was clear.
scholagladiatoria It usually is, I'm a bit of a fiend when it comes to correcting people on that. Love your videos, keep up the good work!
For me, if I was a swordsman, I prefer "points" over cuts, while "cutting" should be used only to block or bypass your enemy's guard.
I wonder why curved/cutheavy weapons were so popular around the whole world