Lokarsh21. And avoiding that would be my number one priority in a real sword fight. Cutting and thrusting opponents is all very nice but bringing my delicate pink ass home undamaged is much more important.
If you kill your opponent immediately, you'll have less opportunity to strike you though. Sometimes focusing on aggression rather than defense is the safer option because it removes the threat or puts them so much on the defensive they can't pose a serious threat to you.
Logan Wolfram If you are fighting against a single opponent that can be true but in a mele there are plenty more where he came from and in any multiple opponent situation, killing one might improve your odds but it does not end the danger. Still, aggression against multiple opponents in a street fight against multiple opponents might convince them to go away and look for easier victims.
Hmm. Well if it's you alone vs multiple opponents I'd quite agree. You probably want to just run as fast as possible or try to find a choke point in that kind of situation though. Whether it is safer to be aggressive or defensive in warfare seems to be one of those age old questions that soldiers have been arguing about since the beginning of time. The kind of advice Talhoffer gives feels quite strongly on the aggressive side of the spectrum for example, though there appear to be no shortage of instructors that disagree with him.
Matt, thank you for the point on wounds. One of my "pros" for cuts when it comes to the cut v thrust debate has always been the increased likelihood of a cut to be immediately debilitating. Beyond just different people reacting differently, with an edge you can physically remove body parts - the hand at the wrist, fingers off the hand, even tendons along the arm (even if the arm remains attached). Cuts are largely more easily treated, BUT a cut may take them out of action regardless of the ultimate outcome. They don't need to die, they just need to stop trying to kill me!
On the subject of cuts, I saw a video here on RUclips of a couple of idiots fighting with sharp blades and almost no protection. In one clip one of them took a rather nasty cut to the forearm and didn't even seem to notice until the other pointed it out. Adrenaline is powerful stuff.
A couple of quick comments.......There is a quote that has keeps popping into my head whenever this subject comes up, and has done for many decades. I have no idea at this date who to credit it to but I'm leaning towards Edmond Rostand (voiced by Cyrano De Bergerac) that "...the Edge wounds, while the point kills." Also remember reading long, long ago about Capt.Edw.Teach (Blackbeard the Pirate of all people) famously drilling his crews on using their cutlasses in a continuous figure 8 keeping the edge moving in front of them at all times. And enforcing this training with knout and noose.
Hey Matt if you read this there was a case in america where one cop stopped a gang member for running a red light and the gang member wanted to get a promotion in his gang in order to do this he had to kill a cop. Essentially they had a fire fight the cop used up pretty much all his ammo on his person and hit the gang member something like 22 times 6 of these shots should have been fatal. As in he was hit and should have dropped. Once the police officer hit the guy in the head the gang member finally went down. When the ambulance got there the gang member still had enough signs of life that they helicoptered him to a hospital and the doctors spent 2 hours trying to save his life. The gang member died. This goes to show you how unpredictable fights can be and such. After that incident that police officer went from carrying 45 rounds of ammo on his belt to 145 rounds.
Great video Matt. I am looking forward to your video about the stopping power (not killing power) of thrusts vs cuts. I am in agreement with you that thrusts to vital organs were more lethal, I've always thought that cuts were better at disabling opponents. If we completely set aside the psychological effects of being struck by a weapon, a thrust to anywhere other than the brain or spine really doesn't have many ways to instantly stop or severely hamper one's brain or motor function. Meanwhile, cuts are much more likely to sever muscle tissue, peripheral nerves and bones, which will hamper the opponent's movement much more than thrusts. I am going to have to quote Dubious Quick Kill again: "The veracity of these accounts is supported by a 1961 survey conducted by Spitz, Petty and Russell which found that of seven victims stabbed in various regions of the heart, none expired immediately. While two were quickly incapacitated, the remaining five were not, and of these one, despite a two-centimeter incision in the left ventricle, walked a full city block, armed himself with a broken beer bottle, and collapsed only after he returned to the scene of the crime to re-engage the individual who had stabbed him." If even thrusts to the heart was not always able to disable easily, then maybe it's sometimes much more preferable to maim your opponent by cutting than going for the thrust to kill.
So in summary, I was trying to say that for swords, neither thrusts nor cuts had reliable stopping power. After all, a person will drop if he/she has experienced enough brain or spinal cord damage to interrupt regular neurologic impulses from reaching vital areas of the body or the person has hemorrhaged enough blood to lower his or her blood pressure where the brain no longer is able to function well. The whole idea of the firearm One Shot Stop is something people do not count on, even when they have the additional element hydrostatic shock to count on (no such effect for swords.) Cuts also have unreliable stopping power, but they are more likely to hamper motor function by interrupting neurologic impulses and disabling muscles.
I would say cuts are more reliable (in terms of doing serious and consistent damage)than a thrust that might not do anything. Thrusts are the short injure-go-to solution but if you DON'T get a vital organ then you have a stuck blade. I mean you can't thrust an arm or a leg off. Then again, stabbing is a fun on it's own.
i think you might also be giving too much credit to the cut. just like a thrust, many cuts are not immediately impactful either. it was actually very common for people to sustain multiple cuts before going down especially with any degree of clothing, and unlike the thrust, it wasnt simply delayed death, but simply non critical wounds period. so either way cut or thrust the opponent continues on. between the two, i wouldnt blame the more strategically concerned individuals for wanting their troops to prefer the thrust. since it would be more consistantly effectual in terms of raw battlefield disablements.
@@alexanerose4820 funny, i would say the exact opisite. cuts are the safer option as the blade is more likely to still be available to defend yourself with, but will be more likely to do non-critical damage. while thrusts do more reliable serious damage but might be more risky.
In battle Wounds count. A famous Sniper adage (Form before the Geneva Convention) was to Shoot to Wound. A wounded man is still less effective in battle, and ultimately takes 2 men off the field, to carry him. In massed battle/Melee, Attrition builds up. Not just Kills, but Wounds. Blood Loss, and getting trampled by your own men when you fall down with a non-lethal leg wound... However, modern Gaming tends to focus on Kills as a Win Condition. In period (Field) Battles, attrition usually accieved a Rout, where the survivers gave up, surrendered, and fled when they reached a critical mass of Casualties. (Wounded, and Killed.)
I heard some proficient knife fighters make the same observation on cut versus thrust. That is, thrusting with knifes is more likely to end a fight while cutting will often take longer for the opponent to succumb. I think it is largely a matter that, when powered by the same force, i.e. man on foot versus man on foot, the thrust inflicts more trauma relative to the force applied. As you noted a thrust through the heart will tend to drop the opponent more or less outright. You generally will not manage to cut into someone's chest enough to cut their heart (on foot, though I would imagine it's a difficult task even for a mounted combatant). Granted if you do manage to land that grievous of a cutting blow to your opponent you have also likely compromised his lungs. The other thing I think tends to affect someone who's cut, is that there is simply a great deal of tissue that absorbs the force of the blow. While a thrust focuses the energy on a very narrow point, a cut happens all along the edge in contact with tissue. That may be a relatively small portion of the blade, but it's still spreading the trauma out, so unless you land it on a vital artery, you've not caused the same damage relative to the force applied to the opponent. Another thing to consider is why you're using a cut. As you pointed out, for an officer in a melee it was considered prudent to have a cutting weapon because it functions as both offense and defense more or less simultaneously. And watching the flourishes you used to demonstrate your point, I notice you do not dedicate the energy of the body in the way you do to thrust. Could it be a s simple as you're not dedicating force that is equal while moving through a cutting routine than you do while thrusting? Taking the "extreme" attack of thrusting, the lunge where you have dedicated your entire movement to that thrust, the only equivalent in cutting techniques is the sort of blow that is inadvisable in a melee, the big "haymaker" type cuts. (You know, most cuts shown in movies) All this to say, should I find myself attempting to dispatch a single opponent, more of my attacks would be thrusts, while dealing with multiple lines of threats I would be cutting furiously to try to carve enough space for me to continue to work my blade.
McBane casually mentions sacrificing your left hand to land a fatal thrust. He would wrap his cloak around his left arm, offer it up as bait, take several broadsword cuts to his arm and run them through with his spadroon/Shearing sword.
I read a study a while back that the FBI did on people being shot and i recall them finding that only when people are told they are shot do they fall over and even then they only fall over because they believe that is what you should do due to films and such, you can see it in action in videos where people get shot multiple times but are still walking around and fighting. I would assume that a stab wound is the same as a bullet, having been stabbed myself it took a colleague to point out the knife in me but I imagine seeing a huge cut can shock a person into falling down as its very obvious that you have been cut and has a much larger horror factor. Lastly wasn't a sword that the British used during the Napoleonic era banned by the french as it made horrific cutting wounds?
The 1796 light cavary saber was very effective for cuts, but was not "banned" (british propaganda of the time). The French had met the mamluks in Egypt and took on their sabers as a military fashion for officers because of their supreme efficiency in the cut, but most of period writings advise to thrust first, then cut, like Matt says.
Two significant points about thrust and cut wounds. The first is not something you brought up, location of wounds. A thrust to someones forearm is probably going to be as unworried as a cut by the person receiving the wound. But thrusts are so much more often to the deadly areas of the torso. This goes along with the second part which is the psychological effects of a person being hit. If you are stabbed in the stomach, you know you are certainly dead. This will cause the person to wholly focus on that fact. Either fall to the ground and weep over their own death, or fight for revenge. A cut we all know is rarely a deadly wound. Yes you can bleed to death, but you have time, and the thing is, you don't know how much time. This allows you to focus on finishing the fight so you can get patched up and avoid death. You also know that cuts are going to be greatly modified by clothing. So even to the most vulnerable place to receive a cut which is the abdomen (Yes the neck is probably more vulnerable but if you are cut in the neck, you are going to be utterly disabled)yet you know that your uniform is going to likely prevent that cut from penetrating down to your vitals.
The best example I know of illustrating how ineffective cuts could be comes from the British invasion of Tibet. Edmund Candler a journalist of the Daily Mail received 17 cuts to the body none of which penetrated his poshteen. He also received multiple blows to the head and arms which he survived.
I once read a Roman's account of his training that stressed they were taught to stab rather than slash because even the worst slash may not kill but even a small stab wound would.
"We just don't know," you can't predict how someone will react. Generally if you leave your weapon in, people tend to stay still, so they don't get any more damage from moving with a sword in them. Again, your problem is your sword is stuck in the enemy, which is useful for moving about, and wounding that one further, but rather useless if he's not alone. Therefore, we see a lot more Thrust specialization for Dueling. The Rapier is a prime example, you're trying to kill your opponent, singular. However, in battle the same fencer would tend to take up a Cut and Thrust sword (Like an Espada de Lato) so they still have their reflexes with Thrusting, and yet they can still cut effectively.
An advantage of cutting swords over thrusting swords is the former can deliver multiple attacks more rapidly. So in melee against multiple opponents it's better to have cut and thrust weapons than thrusting only weapons. For cavalry, giving the point is more lethal, but again you're not delivering many blows as your horse gallops through unformed infantry, compared to cantering around them slashing away annihilating the whole lot. However once armies are equipped with breech loading rifles it would be suicidal for cavalry to do anything but charge through giving point only. That's when you see straight cavalry swords
Matt, I think your gunshot analogy is valid as far as the points you mentioned. However, I feel that a better analogy for cuts vs thrusts is punches vs kicks as we see them in modern MMA competition. A punch, much like a cut, has the advantages of being very quick to transition into another attack or back into a defensive position. While kick would be similar to a thrust in that you have incredible damage potential depending placement, and that you would then be vulnerable to counter attack. Watch this video if you're interested in what kind of power can be generated from different strikes and fighting styles, however keep in mind that the fighters are not all the same size.
Speeking of surviving wounds and the effect they have in a fight. I had a friend in the national guard whos head was covered in scars. In civilian life (ironically) he was attacked and stabbed in the head more than 10 times. Obviously he survived and said at the time he didnt even know he was being stabbed. He thought he was being punched very softly in the head.
In a melee? I think I'd like something like a backsword, and maybe a buckler (though I know the combination is a little odd). Not having to worry about my hands is great and I'm too used to the somewhat over-committed thrusts of my rapier club to want a a thrusting weapon against multiple people
I Think cuts are more useful on limbs and the neck area. For one, it is much easier to hit those areas withg a long edge vs. a small point. Second, there are many important blood vessels which are hard to miss with a long edge, while a stab might right go beside them. If you draw a blade across someones neck and cut some of the major vessels, even if its just the vein, you can be pretty sure they will drop because of bloodloss in between a minute or so and will be severely in trouble before that. If your blade has a lot of chopping power, the skull is also a primary target and has a very high chance of dropping someone rightout fatal. Stabs are primarily for the torso region, where cutting edges do not shine so much because of clothing and ribs, so you are somewhat limited in choice of target area, although a stab through the eye will surely have its effect, if you manage to hit, which is difficult. It is also true that the roman infantry was instructed to not chop the enemy with their gladius, as it simply does not have the ability to deliver cuts deep enough to kill quickly, because, well, its a stabbing optimized short sword for usage in narrow formations. Not the case with what a viking had in a sword, which would perfectly split a skull or chop through a collar bone.
Hi Matt, just curious: Among these arguments put forth by the fencing circles you have studied, was there anyone who actually bring in "context" into the argument and considered the various scenarios where a cut or a thrust might have been useful?
Overall I'd prefer an arming sword over any other because it seems the most utilitarian. In certain situations I might be disadvantaged, say against someone with a longer reach, but I think I could manage in any situation and in war/duels/combat in general you can never know with 100% accuracy what you will face so to cover my bases as it were, I would prefer the arming sword.
I would take my axe! Its an all purpose weapon for the Galloglass. Melee's, battlefield formations, guard duties, and one on one fighting. But as for swords I would like something more balance between cut and thrust but as long as they had good hand protection. I would probably go with a mortuary hilted backsword.
It was the Indian mutiny, and Captain Cornwall Context was involved in a fierce cavalry charge. His revolver was empty, and his sword had already taken a few deep notches from the blades of his foes. He was about to retreat when, there, riding swiftly at him, was the Punjabi Punisher. Against all logic they dismounted, saluted, and engaged. Captain Context picked u a carbine, and , using the butt, delivered a stroke at his enemy, which was parried expertly with the buckler. He then gave a straight thrust, and, the Punisher not comprehending this style of fence, was slain by a full seven inches of penetration by the stiff weapon.
I believe the cossacks were trained to give thrusts with a spear / lance from borseback. I've heard those are even better for thrust work because they have a long shaft. I imagine cutting with the sword makes it less likely you'll lose it. If you watch 19th / early 20th century videos of cossack swordsmanship exhibitions, they always cut with to motion of the horse. Once again, this reduces force on the blade and the hand. On the other hand, they would use cuts and thrusts when sparring each other on horseback. So context is important.
Incidentally, I was recently reading a work on Khevsur swordsmanship and sword + buckler (1950s USSR) and the book stated that Khevsurs exclusively used a hammer grip (even when thrusting) to reduce the risk of being disarmed. So a very important rule in melee combat = "don't lose your sword".
Matt, really interesting video that's entirely relevant to a sword idea of mine inspired by the orc swords from LOTR - don't stop there. I feel like a longsword esque design but with a 3in spike on one side of the blade, perpendicular, would be incredibly effective at piercing armour with a slash, but I'd be interested to hear your opinion on how vulnerable you think the wielder would be after this move and also if you think this would be an effective weapon as a whole [for a footsoldier.] thanks!!
In what videos do you talk about Richard Burton? I would be highly interested in watching those. I have been fascinated by the man ever since I read the biography written about him entitled A Rage to Live.
Could you make a video talking about martial arts systems that use either ONLY (or nearly only) cuts or thrusts, but with weapons that have the capacity to do both?
18:15 heck, I once heard on some history channel show about egpytian weapons that there was a debate about using local khopesh (curved sword) vs. European made straight swords.
I don't have a hell of a lot of HEMA training. But I have some in Fiore, specifically longsword, dagger, and grappling. On foot, I'd pick a spear. I think the sheer reach advantage is just too great for me to ignore. If we limit ourselves to swords though, I guess I'd pick a nice and pointy longsword or rapier. Under no circumstances would I want to give up the point.
Husaria of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is of course associated mainly with szabla which is a cut-oriented weapon. But they were also equipped with more thrust-oriented weapons. They had backup thrusting swords used after breaking lances. There are two types of these: koncerz and pałasz. The first is a kind of long one-handed estoc with a pistol grip and it was a thrust-only sword. The second is a more compromise design with a broad straight one-edge blade, basically a backsword with a szabla hilt. It seems that one or the other was attached to the horse and carried to the battle alongside other backup weapons: szabla, nadziak (a spiked war hammer) and pistols. We can imagine that szabla was preferred in a melee situation, while konerz or pałasz were more suited for charges.
WasatyPanKazimierz The concerz and palasz you mentioned, were these about four feet long and carried by the people who wore "wings" made of wood and feathers attached to the back plate of their armor? I remember seeing something like that in a museum in Europe but nobody I have ever mentioned it to seems to have heard of any thing like it.
That is exactly who carried them, yes, although they weren't the only ones the weapons were characteristic of the hussars. Google 'husaria' or 'Polish hussars' for the long version, but the short is that they were the elite fighters of the Commonwealth in the the 16th to 18th century.
Yes, although the use of wings in battle is debatable. Your description roughly fits koncerz. It was a very long sword with a narrow blade and no cutting edge (triangular or square cross section), basically a skewer. Existing historical examples are around +150 cm. Pałasz, on the other hand, was a "normal" size straight cavalry sword, basically a backsword with a hilt similar in style to that of a typical Polish sabre of the period (i.e. from the late 16th up to the end of the 17th century). In historical sources the sabre (szabla) is sometimes referred to as "curved pałasz" or even simply “pałasz” so there is some controversy among historians in interpreting certain battle accounts. When it comes to koncerz and pałasz, a Polish-Lithuanian hussar could carry to battle both of these weapons attached to the saddle of his horse (while the sabre was carried as a sidearm attached to the belt) or just one of them, depending on his wealth, status and preference. His main weapon was a long heavy lance (which was the only weapon issued by the government) but it was designed to break on impact, so after the first charge, a secondary charge was most likely carried out with koncerz or pałasz.
but mat is it better to sit on a curved or straight blade ha ha great fun video well done again i am just learning and i have a dusak ( Scottish cutlass ) and a 1796 light cav. i find it harder to learn the curved blade than straight . just a observation keep up the great videos.
i think its depends on where you like to hit. cut is more effective on arm, hand and neck. while thrust is harder to land on small moving target such as hand and arm. but it would be more lethal against torso and thigh.
what do you think of the theory that in later periods cutting technique, for lack of a better way of putting it, degenerated? that in the modern period cuts came to almost always be delivered with the wrist and so lost the stopping power they had in older forms of swordsmanship (or in eastern forms of swordsmanship)? and that this influenced the consensus in favor of the thrust in the 19th century?
I wonder if this also had an impact on formations used: more curved or straight swords dedicated to cutting with all the slashing at both sides implies a looser formation with less use for big shields, while large shields might make up for the thrusting weakness.
You see something similar between the Dadao and the Jian in China. The Jian becoming a scholars or dueling sword and being replaced by the Dadao for the military.
i used to prefer cut because it come nature to me. but after more opponent i practice against, i then start to favor thrust. now i just dont care, i use whatever gain me the advantage. if i must make a choice i prefer a sword that can easily chop off a low arm, yet has a point that can jab at the lower part of the thigh.
I think when fighting conscripted soldier and non angry civilians a thrust sword might do the stuff. after all you only have to take their will to fight. fighting pepole who realy want to kill you I would pick a cut centric sword and cut until I hit something important. after all it don´t help me if my enemy bleeds out after three or four minuts, if he has mortaly wounded me in that time.
I can understand the advantage of a thrust but what I wonder is considering the reports of people regularly running people through up to the hilt of their sword is are dedicated thrusting swords justified. Or would a spear pointed back-sword or a broadsword, with a longer hilt to allow a sabre grip be effectively just as good at thrusting well still retaining the ability to cut. In contrast Mats comment about cuts not being that damaging suggests that hyper dedicated hyper effective, 1796 LC and Tulwar come to mind, are justified for cut focused fighting as supposed to a more balanced sword like the 1822 LC. But, I also wonder if that is true.
It seems to me that the cavalry exercise would not work if you had over penetration .this is with a thrust-centric sword with no sharp edges to cut it's way out of the opponents body. For a people who were at war for extended periods it is strange that the English had such a hard time deciding on the best shape of sword, most artisans who use tools constantly soon find the one with the right shape and /or weight.
Thank you fore the video nice info. Do not know all the swords you talk abut and think your point can get stronger presented if you post a picture of the sword ore if you have one presenting it is all ways nice.
Why did swords split into cutting and thrusting weapons in the 16th century and not before? I could see in the 17th/18th century that the distinction might accelerate as cavalry doffed its armor due to the threat of guns and became more infantry slaughterers than infantry breakers. A sword is no longer a versatile weapon for the situation a lancer might find themself in after a charge. Instead it is the primary means of slaying infantrymen who are fleeing (or otherwise moving in a disordered way) or fending off other cavalry. Could the price or quality of steel have been an influence? If a sword were made lighter with better steel (mainly less steel but harder) it would be easier to influence where the weight of the blade was balance by altering the weight of the handle. With less weight on the blade the sword would lose most of its cudgeling ability. Also with steel on the blade perhaps more trade offs have to be made in how it is distributed?
In terms of a sword's cudgeling ability, I'd say that several Napoleonic sabres had plenty of it - quite a few of them had strong blade presence. But not the later thrust-centric sabres like the British gothic-hilted sabres. In addition, cavalry sabres were often paired with firearms - being superior long-range weaponry compared to spears or polearms. Therefore, a Hussar/Curiassier with Gun + Sword weapon set is an extremely effective and versatile fighting unit; superior range than a spear/polearm that also had anti-armor capabilities, (pistol/carbine) while still having a versatile and effective close quarter combat weapon. (sabre/pallasch).
Consider talking about unarmed vs armed fights maybe? Yes, our favourite movie fights. Obviously if both fighters are more or less equal in skills unarmed one is doomed. But in what situations, with what level of difference in skill unarmed fighter has more or less good chance to win?
That push cut on the way in would also turn into a draw cut on the way out, wouldn't it? I could be wrong, but it seems like the victim could potentially be exposed to nearly the entire cutting edge *twice*, once in each direction.
I have a question about sword blade design, are their sword blade designs that give equil advantage to both a thrusting attacks and cutting attacks , and exactly what kind of a sword blade design would it look like
A question about context. In a battle situation, of course, lethality may be the most important feature of a weapon. But besides of that, I can imagine situations like a duel, self-defense, a street-fight or a brawl where people may have fought only until the first blood. Do the sources say something about such situations?
If you had to pick one sword to use and you know who will have to use it in every situation you can think of, like dueling, in formation on horseback and just carrying with you at all times, like the most all-round sword in your opinion, what would it be?
Спорт
"Don't sit on a sword, people."
Instructions unclear; spadroon stuck in rectum.
Did it feel good, though?
"Holy fuck, I've been stabbed!" seems like a very reasonable reaction to being hit with a sword, I'll say.
Lokarsh21. And avoiding that would be my number one priority in a real sword fight. Cutting and thrusting opponents is all very nice but bringing my delicate pink ass home undamaged is much more important.
If you kill your opponent immediately, you'll have less opportunity to strike you though. Sometimes focusing on aggression rather than defense is the safer option because it removes the threat or puts them so much on the defensive they can't pose a serious threat to you.
Logan Wolfram If you are fighting against a single opponent that can be true but in a mele there are plenty more where he came from and in any multiple opponent situation, killing one might improve your odds but it does not end the danger. Still, aggression against multiple opponents in a street fight against multiple opponents might convince them to go away and look for easier victims.
Hmm. Well if it's you alone vs multiple opponents I'd quite agree. You probably want to just run as fast as possible or try to find a choke point in that kind of situation though.
Whether it is safer to be aggressive or defensive in warfare seems to be one of those age old questions that soldiers have been arguing about since the beginning of time. The kind of advice Talhoffer gives feels quite strongly on the aggressive side of the spectrum for example, though there appear to be no shortage of instructors that disagree with him.
You see that Matt Easten from Scholagladiatoria? He's got curved swords... Curved Swords..
So original..
Matt, thank you for the point on wounds. One of my "pros" for cuts when it comes to the cut v thrust debate has always been the increased likelihood of a cut to be immediately debilitating. Beyond just different people reacting differently, with an edge you can physically remove body parts - the hand at the wrist, fingers off the hand, even tendons along the arm (even if the arm remains attached). Cuts are largely more easily treated, BUT a cut may take them out of action regardless of the ultimate outcome. They don't need to die, they just need to stop trying to kill me!
I think I agree with this, cut is more debilitating while thrust is more fatal
"...the book that I often pimp on this channel..."
Specialization is not fundamentally wrong, but I would always use a cut and thrust sword to be flexible. Different opponents need different solutions.
On the subject of cuts, I saw a video here on RUclips of a couple of idiots fighting with sharp blades and almost no protection. In one clip one of them took a rather nasty cut to the forearm and didn't even seem to notice until the other pointed it out. Adrenaline is powerful stuff.
A couple of quick comments.......There is a quote that has keeps popping into my head whenever this subject comes up, and has done for many decades. I have no idea at this date who to credit it to but I'm leaning towards Edmond Rostand (voiced by Cyrano De Bergerac) that "...the Edge wounds, while the point kills."
Also remember reading long, long ago about Capt.Edw.Teach (Blackbeard the Pirate of all people) famously drilling his crews on using their cutlasses in a continuous figure 8 keeping the edge moving in front of them at all times. And enforcing this training with knout and noose.
Hey Matt if you read this there was a case in america where one cop stopped a gang member for running a red light and the gang member wanted to get a promotion in his gang in order to do this he had to kill a cop. Essentially they had a fire fight the cop used up pretty much all his ammo on his person and hit the gang member something like 22 times 6 of these shots should have been fatal. As in he was hit and should have dropped. Once the police officer hit the guy in the head the gang member finally went down. When the ambulance got there the gang member still had enough signs of life that they helicoptered him to a hospital and the doctors spent 2 hours trying to save his life. The gang member died.
This goes to show you how unpredictable fights can be and such.
After that incident that police officer went from carrying 45 rounds of ammo on his belt to 145 rounds.
"Don't sit on a sword, people". Words to live by.
Matt, could you do an in-depth video on the Egyptian khopesh? That would be very interesting.
is overpenetration a problem when sitting on swords?
fleurdelispens Can never have too much penetration when sitting on something.
i would say that any type of penetration when sitting on a sword, is problematic lol....
I guess it is, if it affects how you can handle the butt.
Are we talking about straight or curved sword and did you pimp it?
Whether the overpenetration is a problem or not depends on the context.
Great video Matt.
I am looking forward to your video about the stopping power (not killing power) of thrusts vs cuts. I am in agreement with you that thrusts to vital organs were more lethal, I've always thought that cuts were better at disabling opponents. If we completely set aside the psychological effects of being struck by a weapon, a thrust to anywhere other than the brain or spine really doesn't have many ways to instantly stop or severely hamper one's brain or motor function. Meanwhile, cuts are much more likely to sever muscle tissue, peripheral nerves and bones, which will hamper the opponent's movement much more than thrusts.
I am going to have to quote Dubious Quick Kill again:
"The veracity of these accounts is supported by a 1961 survey conducted by Spitz, Petty and Russell which found that of seven victims stabbed in various regions of the heart, none expired immediately. While two were quickly incapacitated, the remaining five were not, and of these one, despite a two-centimeter incision in the left ventricle, walked a full city block, armed himself with a broken beer bottle, and collapsed only after he returned to the scene of the crime to re-engage the individual who had stabbed him."
If even thrusts to the heart was not always able to disable easily, then maybe it's sometimes much more preferable to maim your opponent by cutting than going for the thrust to kill.
So in summary, I was trying to say that for swords, neither thrusts nor cuts had reliable stopping power. After all, a person will drop if he/she has experienced enough brain or spinal cord damage to interrupt regular neurologic impulses from reaching vital areas of the body or the person has hemorrhaged enough blood to lower his or her blood pressure where the brain no longer is able to function well. The whole idea of the firearm One Shot Stop is something people do not count on, even when they have the additional element hydrostatic shock to count on (no such effect for swords.)
Cuts also have unreliable stopping power, but they are more likely to hamper motor function by interrupting neurologic impulses and disabling muscles.
Robert the Bruce very interesting , thank you for sharing
I would say cuts are more reliable (in terms of doing serious and consistent damage)than a thrust that might not do anything. Thrusts are the short injure-go-to solution but if you DON'T get a vital organ then you have a stuck blade. I mean you can't thrust an arm or a leg off.
Then again, stabbing is a fun on it's own.
i think you might also be giving too much credit to the cut. just like a thrust, many cuts are not immediately impactful either. it was actually very common for people to sustain multiple cuts before going down especially with any degree of clothing, and unlike the thrust, it wasnt simply delayed death, but simply non critical wounds period. so either way cut or thrust the opponent continues on.
between the two, i wouldnt blame the more strategically concerned individuals for wanting their troops to prefer the thrust. since it would be more consistantly effectual in terms of raw battlefield disablements.
@@alexanerose4820 funny, i would say the exact opisite. cuts are the safer option as the blade is more likely to still be available to defend yourself with, but will be more likely to do non-critical damage. while thrusts do more reliable serious damage but might be more risky.
Make sure that you have "Safe Search" ON when you google Tent Pegging...
Fascinating stuff, Matt. One of the best videos in ages!
In battle Wounds count. A famous Sniper adage (Form before the Geneva Convention) was to Shoot to Wound. A wounded man is still less effective in battle, and ultimately takes 2 men off the field, to carry him. In massed battle/Melee, Attrition builds up. Not just Kills, but Wounds. Blood Loss, and getting trampled by your own men when you fall down with a non-lethal leg wound... However, modern Gaming tends to focus on Kills as a Win Condition. In period (Field) Battles, attrition usually accieved a Rout, where the survivers gave up, surrendered, and fled when they reached a critical mass of Casualties. (Wounded, and Killed.)
This is the best video you've done lately in my opinion. Awesome stuff.
"holy fuck I've been stabbed" and drop...
Best words ever in any video here.
"Don't sit on a sword, people." Truly uncommon wisdom from master fencer Matt Easton.
I heard some proficient knife fighters make the same observation on cut versus thrust. That is, thrusting with knifes is more likely to end a fight while cutting will often take longer for the opponent to succumb. I think it is largely a matter that, when powered by the same force, i.e. man on foot versus man on foot, the thrust inflicts more trauma relative to the force applied. As you noted a thrust through the heart will tend to drop the opponent more or less outright. You generally will not manage to cut into someone's chest enough to cut their heart (on foot, though I would imagine it's a difficult task even for a mounted combatant). Granted if you do manage to land that grievous of a cutting blow to your opponent you have also likely compromised his lungs. The other thing I think tends to affect someone who's cut, is that there is simply a great deal of tissue that absorbs the force of the blow. While a thrust focuses the energy on a very narrow point, a cut happens all along the edge in contact with tissue. That may be a relatively small portion of the blade, but it's still spreading the trauma out, so unless you land it on a vital artery, you've not caused the same damage relative to the force applied to the opponent. Another thing to consider is why you're using a cut. As you pointed out, for an officer in a melee it was considered prudent to have a cutting weapon because it functions as both offense and defense more or less simultaneously. And watching the flourishes you used to demonstrate your point, I notice you do not dedicate the energy of the body in the way you do to thrust. Could it be a s simple as you're not dedicating force that is equal while moving through a cutting routine than you do while thrusting? Taking the "extreme" attack of thrusting, the lunge where you have dedicated your entire movement to that thrust, the only equivalent in cutting techniques is the sort of blow that is inadvisable in a melee, the big "haymaker" type cuts. (You know, most cuts shown in movies) All this to say, should I find myself attempting to dispatch a single opponent, more of my attacks would be thrusts, while dealing with multiple lines of threats I would be cutting furiously to try to carve enough space for me to continue to work my blade.
Looked up pegging videos on youtube. Found something else entirely.
ceomyr hahaha. Did you see any deep thrusting penetration?
Never google
You forgot the "tent" part mate.
+Cinocephalus I did that once, it ruined the camping trip.
ceomyr I know, that one of ken and Barbie was really bizarre. Very professional quality though.
Excellent talk, really enjoyed
McBane casually mentions sacrificing your left hand to land a fatal thrust. He would wrap his cloak around his left arm, offer it up as bait, take several broadsword cuts to his arm and run them through with his spadroon/Shearing sword.
thank you for this video. it was very informative and interesting!
I read a study a while back that the FBI did on people being shot and i recall them finding that only when people are told they are shot do they fall over and even then they only fall over because they believe that is what you should do due to films and such, you can see it in action in videos where people get shot multiple times but are still walking around and fighting.
I would assume that a stab wound is the same as a bullet, having been stabbed myself it took a colleague to point out the knife in me but I imagine seeing a huge cut can shock a person into falling down as its very obvious that you have been cut and has a much larger horror factor.
Lastly wasn't a sword that the British used during the Napoleonic era banned by the french as it made horrific cutting wounds?
The 1796 light cavary saber was very effective for cuts, but was not "banned" (british propaganda of the time). The French had met the mamluks in Egypt and took on their sabers as a military fashion for officers because of their supreme efficiency in the cut, but most of period writings advise to thrust first, then cut, like Matt says.
Two significant points about thrust and cut wounds. The first is not something you brought up, location of wounds. A thrust to someones forearm is probably going to be as unworried as a cut by the person receiving the wound. But thrusts are so much more often to the deadly areas of the torso. This goes along with the second part which is the psychological effects of a person being hit. If you are stabbed in the stomach, you know you are certainly dead. This will cause the person to wholly focus on that fact. Either fall to the ground and weep over their own death, or fight for revenge. A cut we all know is rarely a deadly wound. Yes you can bleed to death, but you have time, and the thing is, you don't know how much time. This allows you to focus on finishing the fight so you can get patched up and avoid death. You also know that cuts are going to be greatly modified by clothing. So even to the most vulnerable place to receive a cut which is the abdomen (Yes the neck is probably more vulnerable but if you are cut in the neck, you are going to be utterly disabled)yet you know that your uniform is going to likely prevent that cut from penetrating down to your vitals.
Great video as usual!
"Don't sit on a sword" - that needs more context.
The best example I know of illustrating how ineffective cuts could be comes from the British invasion of Tibet. Edmund Candler a journalist of the Daily Mail received 17 cuts to the body none of which penetrated his poshteen. He also received multiple blows to the head and arms which he survived.
Great vid, thanks Matt.
I once read a Roman's account of his training that stressed they were taught to stab rather than slash because even the worst slash may not kill but even a small stab wound would.
Interesting video, thanks!
Very interesting points.... and cuts
"[...] Swordsmen of the British Empire, the book that I often...uh...pimp on this channel." I think that's another one for my favorite quotes list. :D
I'd love to see a video entirely dedicated to Burton and your critique of him. A whole series on famous sword authorities would be great.
This is a very good video
feels like i'm playing this game on my old 486.
"We just don't know," you can't predict how someone will react. Generally if you leave your weapon in, people tend to stay still, so they don't get any more damage from moving with a sword in them. Again, your problem is your sword is stuck in the enemy, which is useful for moving about, and wounding that one further, but rather useless if he's not alone. Therefore, we see a lot more Thrust specialization for Dueling. The Rapier is a prime example, you're trying to kill your opponent, singular. However, in battle the same fencer would tend to take up a Cut and Thrust sword (Like an Espada de Lato) so they still have their reflexes with Thrusting, and yet they can still cut effectively.
An advantage of cutting swords over thrusting swords is the former can deliver multiple attacks more rapidly. So in melee against multiple opponents it's better to have cut and thrust weapons than thrusting only weapons. For cavalry, giving the point is more lethal, but again you're not delivering many blows as your horse gallops through unformed infantry, compared to cantering around them slashing away annihilating the whole lot. However once armies are equipped with breech loading rifles it would be suicidal for cavalry to do anything but charge through giving point only. That's when you see straight cavalry swords
Matt, I think your gunshot analogy is valid as far as the points you mentioned. However, I feel that a better analogy for cuts vs thrusts is punches vs kicks as we see them in modern MMA competition. A punch, much like a cut, has the advantages of being very quick to transition into another attack or back into a defensive position. While kick would be similar to a thrust in that you have incredible damage potential depending placement, and that you would then be vulnerable to counter attack. Watch this video if you're interested in what kind of power can be generated from different strikes and fighting styles, however keep in mind that the fighters are not all the same size.
m.ruclips.net/video/sfnGkV6qmTw/видео.html
"Different strokes for different folks" - Sly Stone, 1968
14:14 “holy fuck I’ve been stabbed”
The only time I’ve heard swearing on this channel, I nearly died of surprise lmao
Speeking of surviving wounds and the effect they have in a fight. I had a friend in the national guard whos head was covered in scars. In civilian life (ironically) he was attacked and stabbed in the head more than 10 times. Obviously he survived and said at the time he didnt even know he was being stabbed. He thought he was being punched very softly in the head.
In a melee? I think I'd like something like a backsword, and maybe a buckler (though I know the combination is a little odd). Not having to worry about my hands is great and I'm too used to the somewhat over-committed thrusts of my rapier club to want a a thrusting weapon against multiple people
I Think cuts are more useful on limbs and the neck area. For one, it is much easier to hit those areas withg a long edge vs. a small point. Second, there are many important blood vessels which are hard to miss with a long edge, while a stab might right go beside them. If you draw a blade across someones neck and cut some of the major vessels, even if its just the vein, you can be pretty sure they will drop because of bloodloss in between a minute or so and will be severely in trouble before that. If your blade has a lot of chopping power, the skull is also a primary target and has a very high chance of dropping someone rightout fatal. Stabs are primarily for the torso region, where cutting edges do not shine so much because of clothing and ribs, so you are somewhat limited in choice of target area, although a stab through the eye will surely have its effect, if you manage to hit, which is difficult. It is also true that the roman infantry was instructed to not chop the enemy with their gladius, as it simply does not have the ability to deliver cuts deep enough to kill quickly, because, well, its a stabbing optimized short sword for usage in narrow formations. Not the case with what a viking had in a sword, which would perfectly split a skull or chop through a collar bone.
Carolean Cavalry in the early 19th century used rapiers interestingly. I don't generally like the rapier, but I can see the appeal.
Hey Matt. Great job as always. Can you point me to your other stopping power video? I'm really interested in that atm.
Hi Matt, just curious: Among these arguments put forth by the fencing circles you have studied, was there anyone who actually bring in "context" into the argument and considered the various scenarios where a cut or a thrust might have been useful?
Instructions unclear - sat on sword.
Whatever you have to tell yourself... We all have our kinks ;p
Overall I'd prefer an arming sword over any other because it seems the most utilitarian. In certain situations I might be disadvantaged, say against someone with a longer reach, but I think I could manage in any situation and in war/duels/combat in general you can never know with 100% accuracy what you will face so to cover my bases as it were, I would prefer the arming sword.
why someone would dislike this video? I don't get it, I imagine somthing like this:
Oh no! stop giving me nicely explain information!
I would take my axe! Its an all purpose weapon for the Galloglass. Melee's, battlefield formations, guard duties, and one on one fighting. But as for swords I would like something more balance between cut and thrust but as long as they had good hand protection. I would probably go with a mortuary hilted backsword.
It was the Indian mutiny, and Captain Cornwall Context was involved in a fierce cavalry charge. His revolver was empty, and his sword had already taken a few deep notches from the blades of his foes. He was about to retreat when, there, riding swiftly at him, was the Punjabi Punisher. Against all logic they dismounted, saluted, and engaged. Captain Context picked u a carbine, and , using the butt, delivered a stroke at his enemy, which was parried expertly with the buckler. He then gave a straight thrust, and, the Punisher not comprehending this style of fence, was slain by a full seven inches of penetration by the stiff weapon.
I believe the cossacks were trained to give thrusts with a spear / lance from borseback. I've heard those are even better for thrust work because they have a long shaft. I imagine cutting with the sword makes it less likely you'll lose it. If you watch 19th / early 20th century videos of cossack swordsmanship exhibitions, they always cut with to motion of the horse. Once again, this reduces force on the blade and the hand. On the other hand, they would use cuts and thrusts when sparring each other on horseback. So context is important.
Incidentally, I was recently reading a work on Khevsur swordsmanship and sword + buckler (1950s USSR) and the book stated that Khevsurs exclusively used a hammer grip (even when thrusting) to reduce the risk of being disarmed. So a very important rule in melee combat = "don't lose your sword".
Matt, really interesting video that's entirely relevant to a sword idea of mine inspired by the orc swords from LOTR - don't stop there. I feel like a longsword esque design but with a 3in spike on one side of the blade, perpendicular, would be incredibly effective at piercing armour with a slash, but I'd be interested to hear your opinion on how vulnerable you think the wielder would be after this move and also if you think this would be an effective weapon as a whole [for a footsoldier.] thanks!!
Forgot to mention, of course the forward point would be sacrificed for the backspike; the blade simply ends flat
In what videos do you talk about Richard Burton? I would be highly interested in watching those. I have been fascinated by the man ever since I read the biography written about him entitled A Rage to Live.
The more I learn about swords, the more i like the rapier.
Could you make a video talking about martial arts systems that use either ONLY (or nearly only) cuts or thrusts, but with weapons that have the capacity to do both?
18:15 heck, I once heard on some history channel show about egpytian weapons that there was a debate about using local khopesh (curved sword) vs. European made straight swords.
I don't have a hell of a lot of HEMA training. But I have some in Fiore, specifically longsword, dagger, and grappling. On foot, I'd pick a spear. I think the sheer reach advantage is just too great for me to ignore. If we limit ourselves to swords though, I guess I'd pick a nice and pointy longsword or rapier. Under no circumstances would I want to give up the point.
Husaria of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is of course associated mainly with szabla which is a cut-oriented weapon. But they were also equipped with more thrust-oriented weapons. They had backup thrusting swords used after breaking lances. There are two types of these: koncerz and pałasz. The first is a kind of long one-handed estoc with a pistol grip and it was a thrust-only sword. The second is a more compromise design with a broad straight one-edge blade, basically a backsword with a szabla hilt. It seems that one or the other was attached to the horse and carried to the battle alongside other backup weapons: szabla, nadziak (a spiked war hammer) and pistols. We can imagine that szabla was preferred in a melee situation, while konerz or pałasz were more suited for charges.
WasatyPanKazimierz The concerz and palasz you mentioned, were these about four feet long and carried by the people who wore "wings" made of wood and feathers attached to the back plate of their armor? I remember seeing something like that in a museum in Europe but nobody I have ever mentioned it to seems to have heard of any thing like it.
That is exactly who carried them, yes, although they weren't the only ones the weapons were characteristic of the hussars. Google 'husaria' or 'Polish hussars' for the long version, but the short is that they were the elite fighters of the Commonwealth in the the 16th to 18th century.
Yes, although the use of wings in battle is debatable. Your description roughly fits koncerz. It was a very long sword with a narrow blade and no cutting edge (triangular or square cross section), basically a skewer. Existing historical examples are around +150 cm. Pałasz, on the other hand, was a "normal" size straight cavalry sword, basically a backsword with a hilt similar in style to that of a typical Polish sabre of the period (i.e. from the late 16th up to the end of the 17th century). In historical sources the sabre (szabla) is sometimes referred to as "curved pałasz" or even simply “pałasz” so there is some controversy among historians in interpreting certain battle accounts. When it comes to koncerz and pałasz, a Polish-Lithuanian hussar could carry to battle both of these weapons attached to the saddle of his horse (while the sabre was carried as a sidearm attached to the belt) or just one of them, depending on his wealth, status and preference. His main weapon was a long heavy lance (which was the only weapon issued by the government) but it was designed to break on impact, so after the first charge, a secondary charge was most likely carried out with koncerz or pałasz.
Case of Rapiers or Twin Sabers, in a both a duel and melee. That sounds most interesting to me!
but mat is it better to sit on a curved or straight blade ha ha great fun video well done again i am just learning and i have a dusak ( Scottish cutlass ) and a 1796 light cav. i find it harder to learn the curved blade than straight . just a observation keep up the great videos.
And that's why Aragorn used both thrust (arguably ineffective) and hand & head cut (partially effective) against Lurdz
i think its depends on where you like to hit. cut is more effective on arm, hand and neck. while thrust is harder to land on small moving target such as hand and arm. but it would be more lethal against torso and thigh.
The answer to thrust vs. cut is obviously seen at 0:03, do both by dual wielding a small-sword and a sabre.
:P
It also depends on indoors or outdoors too.
good video
what do you think of the theory that in later periods cutting technique, for lack of a better way of putting it, degenerated? that in the modern period cuts came to almost always be delivered with the wrist and so lost the stopping power they had in older forms of swordsmanship (or in eastern forms of swordsmanship)? and that this influenced the consensus in favor of the thrust in the 19th century?
Very interesting theory.
This video was interesting and I enjoyed it but It did seem more ramble-y than usual.
I am learning too much!
quickly- drink this bottle of whisky to unlearn things before your brain explodes.
You may have already done it. Can you do a video on the difficulties of fighting an off-hand opponent (oppositely handed to you).
11:29 a lesser man would have had a nasty accident there.
Thrusting often resulted in double kill . I will always go for a cut and thrust sword ,mostly cutting .
I wonder if this also had an impact on formations used: more curved or straight swords dedicated to cutting with all the slashing at both sides implies a looser formation with less use for big shields, while large shields might make up for the thrusting weakness.
You see something similar between the Dadao and the Jian in China. The Jian becoming a scholars or dueling sword and being replaced by the Dadao for the military.
i used to prefer cut because it come nature to me. but after more opponent i practice against, i then start to favor thrust. now i just dont care, i use whatever gain me the advantage.
if i must make a choice i prefer a sword that can easily chop off a low arm, yet has a point that can jab at the lower part of the thigh.
I think when fighting conscripted soldier and non angry civilians a thrust sword might do the stuff. after all you only have to take their will to fight. fighting pepole who realy want to kill you I would pick a cut centric sword and cut until I hit something important. after all it don´t help me if my enemy bleeds out after three or four minuts, if he has mortaly wounded me in that time.
I can understand the advantage of a thrust but what I wonder is considering the reports of people regularly running people through up to the hilt of their sword is are dedicated thrusting swords justified. Or would a spear pointed back-sword or a broadsword, with a longer hilt to allow a sabre grip be effectively just as good at thrusting well still retaining the ability to cut. In contrast Mats comment about cuts not being that damaging suggests that hyper dedicated hyper effective, 1796 LC and Tulwar come to mind, are justified for cut focused fighting as supposed to a more balanced sword like the 1822 LC. But, I also wonder if that is true.
Do a video on a specialized vs dedicated swords.
It seems to me that the cavalry exercise would not work if you had over penetration .this is with a thrust-centric sword with no sharp edges to cut it's way out of the opponents body. For a people who were at war for extended periods it is strange that the English had such a hard time deciding on the best shape of sword, most artisans who use tools constantly soon find the one with the right shape and /or weight.
omg Matt is dual wielding in this video
I want to see "MMA" style fight of different swords up against each other.
Was the Gallowglass battle ax used in a similar fashion to the curved sword, swinging?
The point is, he stands by the point, that it's better to use point.
Thank you fore the video nice info.
Do not know all the swords you talk abut and think your point can get stronger presented if you post a picture of the sword ore if you have one presenting it is all ways nice.
Why did swords split into cutting and thrusting weapons in the 16th century and not before?
I could see in the 17th/18th century that the distinction might accelerate as cavalry doffed its armor due to the threat of guns and became more infantry slaughterers than infantry breakers. A sword is no longer a versatile weapon for the situation a lancer might find themself in after a charge. Instead it is the primary means of slaying infantrymen who are fleeing (or otherwise moving in a disordered way) or fending off other cavalry.
Could the price or quality of steel have been an influence?
If a sword were made lighter with better steel (mainly less steel but harder) it would be easier to influence where the weight of the blade was balance by altering the weight of the handle. With less weight on the blade the sword would lose most of its cudgeling ability. Also with steel on the blade perhaps more trade offs have to be made in how it is distributed?
In terms of a sword's cudgeling ability, I'd say that several Napoleonic sabres had plenty of it - quite a few of them had strong blade presence. But not the later thrust-centric sabres like the British gothic-hilted sabres.
In addition, cavalry sabres were often paired with firearms - being superior long-range weaponry compared to spears or polearms. Therefore, a Hussar/Curiassier with Gun + Sword weapon set is an extremely effective and versatile fighting unit; superior range than a spear/polearm that also had anti-armor capabilities, (pistol/carbine) while still having a versatile and effective close quarter combat weapon. (sabre/pallasch).
Early like and comment. I got to sleep
Consider talking about unarmed vs armed fights maybe? Yes, our favourite movie fights. Obviously if both fighters are more or less equal in skills unarmed one is doomed. But in what situations, with what level of difference in skill unarmed fighter has more or less good chance to win?
That push cut on the way in would also turn into a draw cut on the way out, wouldn't it? I could be wrong, but it seems like the victim could potentially be exposed to nearly the entire cutting edge *twice*, once in each direction.
"The book I pimp on this channel"
Since scholagladatoria focuses on saber do you spend more time teaching cuts than thrusts in your hema classes?
"Holy fuck I've been stabbed" hahaha
14:08 we did it clipped Matt saying "fuck"
I have a question about sword blade design, are their sword blade designs that give equil advantage to both a thrusting attacks and cutting attacks , and exactly what kind of a sword blade design would it look like
"Don´t sit on a sword people"
-Scholagladiatoria 2017
A question about context. In a battle situation, of course, lethality may be the most important feature of a weapon. But besides of that, I can imagine situations like a duel, self-defense, a street-fight or a brawl where people may have fought only until the first blood. Do the sources say something about such situations?
Was the video only for me that low in FPS?
If you had to pick one sword to use and you know who will have to use it in every situation you can think of, like dueling, in formation on horseback and just carrying with you at all times, like the most all-round sword in your opinion, what would it be?
Arming swords are great. Can both cut and thrust.