Read Silver's Paradoxes of Defense today.

Found the following quite interesting:

Quote:

First I will begin with the worst weapon, an imperfect and insufficient weapon, and not worth the speaking of, but now being highly esteemed, therefore not to be unremembered. That is, the single rapier, and rapier and poniard. The single sword has the vantage against the single rapier. The sword and dagger has the vantage against the rapier and poniard. The sword & target has the advantage against the sword and dagger, or the rapier and poniard. The sword and buckler has advantage against the sword and target, the sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard. The two handed sword has the vantage against the sword and target, the sword and buckler, the sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard. The battle axe, the halberd, the black-bill, or such like weapons of weight . . . have advantage against the two handed sword, the sword and buckler, the sword and target, the sword and dagger, or the rapier and poniard. The short staff or half pike, forest bill, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of perfect length, have the advantage against the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets, and for the long staff and morris pike. The long staff, morris pike, or javelin, or such like weapons above the perfect length, have advantage against all manner of weapons, the short staff, the Welch hook, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of vantage excepted, yet are too weak for two swords and daggers or two sword and bucklers, or two rapiers and poniards with gauntlets, because they are too long to thrust, strike, and turn speedily. And by reason of the large distance, one of the sword and dagger-men will get behind him. The Welch hook or forest bill, has advantage against all manner of weapons whatsoever. Yet understand, that in battles, and where variety of weapons are, among multitudes of men and horses, the sword and target, the two handed sword, battle axe, the black bill, and halberd, are better weapons, and more dangerous in their offense and forces, than is the sword and buckler, short staff, long staff, or forest bill. The sword and target leads upon shot, and in troops defends thrusts and blows given by battle axe, halberds, black bill, or two handed swords, far better than can the sword and buckler. The morris pike defends the battle from both horse and man, much better than can the short staff, long staff, or forest bill. Again the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, and sword & target, among armed men and troops, by reason of their weights, shortness, and great force, do much more offend the enemy, & are then much better weapons, than is the short staff, the long staff, or the forest bill.

What do you all think?

As Mr. Scott would say, "The right tool for the right job!"
And a hand grenade would have an advantage over all? This depends on who, what, when, where, and why on the use of a weaponed. In some instance, one type of weapond would work better than another like a dagger in a very narrow hallway instead of a great sword or a club. You need the swing room for the larger stuff and the same would be true in the reverse.
I would not go after a man with a bill with just a dagger in an open field!
Think also on who is using it, is he an expert in this weapond? Has he trained most of his life in the use of it?
Too many variables to say truly what is a better weapon in a given circumstance.

All those things you say are true.

But you have to take Silver's comments in the spirit given. It's clear from his treatise that he's referring to open-ground combat, whether between individuals during peace time or on the field of general battle. He even clarifies that some weapons that would serve very well in personal combat (like the staff) would not be suited for the battlefied.

I think it is fair to make generalized statements about which weapons bring a relative advantage against other weapons, all other things being equal. He doesn't suggest one weapon=automatic victory over another; he simply suggests it brings an advantage.

I find Silver's judgments worth talking about because he, unlike us, speaks from years of real-life experience with all of these weapons.

Just because there might be lots of variables doesn't mean the discussion isn't worth having.

Does it?

By citing Silver's views on wounds, George brings up an excellent point. Silver was absolutely correct about the relative stopping power of the thrust against the cut. It's amazing what the human body can endure. Despite what you might think, men often don't stop immediately even when stabbed in the heart or face. You can't expect a thrust to quickly end the fight.

Blows are far from a sure thing, but they're significantly more likely to incapacitate. Silver seems to have understood that cuts wouldn't always end the contest. He referred to dealing with a wounded foe more than once. As far as I know, no other master has demonstrated such a level of knowledge about human response to injury.

Quote:

In fairness, I'd like to see both side of the argument, i.e. the rapier masters' point of view on Silver... Does that exist?

It does. Swetnam dismissed Silver's opinion. He made similarly inflated claims about great odds the rapier has against the sword. There's no question Swetnam knew how to fight, but he had some bizarre views. For example, he claimed a wound in the belly was more dangerous than one in the face.

By the way, that odd modern account of rapier fighting shows how variable wounding is. There are plenty of accounts of folks fighting on after more serious wounds to the leg.

Let's not get too one sided on this argument. There's plenty of historical evidence to support both cutting and thrusting, and the fact that the debate lasted well until the end of the life of the sword should show that Silver wasn't any more right than the next guy.

George Hill wrote:

Silver was... in a way.... later proven right. In the English civil war 'long rapiers were used for a time, and then set aside.' (Who said that?)

Sir John Smythe. And that's only the English, not the rest of Europe.

Quote:

True, but what's more immediately disabling? A cut-off swordarm, or a poke through the chest?

That's a hugely lopsided statement. I could say, "What's more disabling, a thrust all the way through the head, or a little nick on the shoulder?" And my statement would be just as equally misleading.

Fabris quite often explained how one would pass with a thrust to the body, then follow up with an additional passing step, striking the opponent in the chest with your hilt. That sounds like stopping power to me. Likewise, Donald McBane talked about how he'd seen many men at war survive multiple cuts and live to tell the tale, but it was the thrust that was always lethal. Perhaps McBane is exagerrating, but certainly no more than Silver.

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:

Blows are far from a sure thing, but they're significantly more likely to incapacitate.

Not everyone agreed on this, including modern doctors. That's why the debate has never been settled, otherwise all cavalry sabers would have been heavy cutters. From the historical record, that wasn't always the case.

I'm not saying that the thrust is better than the cut. But I do think context is always important.

I find all these replies fascinating!

I will throw in that Silver emphasizes in several places that both the thrust and the blow are essential. I believe he stresses the strengths of the blow in that excellent passage quoted above because the thrust had become so overwhelmingly and exclusively popular in some quarters.

Quote:

There is no fight perfect without both blow and thrust: neither is there any certain rule to be set down for the use of the point only. . . . There is in my opinion in our fence schools an evil order or custom in these days used . . . That is this, at the single sword, sword and dagger, & sword and buckler, they forbid the thrust, & at the single rapier, and rapier & dagger, they forbid the blow. Either they are both together best, or the thrust altogether best, or the blow altogether best. If the thrust is best, why do we not use it at the single sword, sword & dagger, & sword & buckler? If the blow is best, why do we not use it at the single rapier, rapier & poniard? But knowing by the art of arms, that no fight is perfect without both blow and thrust, why do we not use and teach both blow and thrust? But however this we daily see, that when two met in fight, whether they have skill or none, unless such as have tied themselves to that boyish, Italian, weak, imperfect fight, they both strike and thrust, and how shall he then do, that being much taught in school, that never learned to strike, nor how to defend a strong blow? And how shall he then do, that being brought up in a fencing school, that never learned to thrust with the single sword, sword and dagger, and sword and buckler, nor how at these weapons to break a thrust?

His strongest objection to the rapier is that it's excessive length makes it impossible for the swordsman to uncross without stepping backwards with his feet. A sword of "perfect length" is as long as possible but short enough that the tip can be passed back and forth behind a dagger held at arm's length in the other arm with the tip up. I've attached a picture below that demonstrates the principle.

---

 Attachment: 10.31 KB

Well, the evidence for people continuing physical activity after fatal heart injuries is unambiguous. There's almost no way to assure an instant stop with a thrust. Hit the right part of the brain, perhaps, or the spine. These things manifestly easier to accomplish with a cut. You can find end endless accounts of cuts removing limbs and heads. Thrusts simply cannot cause the same kind of damage.

In order for thrusts to be superior, you have to believe that swords are extremely unlikely to remove limbs and heads, or cut deeply into the brain. Even then, unless you discount all the records of mighty cuts, the blow at least retains superior potential. I've never read any account of a man continuing to fight after being decapitated.

At least some 19th-century sources acknowledge that powerful blows could incapacitate instantly. Matthew J. O'Rourke, for example. But he still didn't believe in delivering such blows, because he thought they left the swordsman too exposed. They tended to use swords rather differently in that age. If you hold the sword with a the saber grip and don't make full blows from above, you won't get the kind of result Silver expected.

Two points to bring into this conversation...

Doesn't Fiore have something to say on the thrust vs. the cut? Someone more familiar with those text than I should be able to find his comments.

And considering the medicine of the day and the lack of internal sutures, a ten inch long gash across the ribs is not a lethal as a little hole through the chest three inches deep. immediately incapacitating or not, it is more lethal in the long run...which may be three seconds or three days.

Yes, thrusts can be deadly, though that's not a sure thing. But you want to stop your opponent from killing you. Killing him in the process isn't as important.

Do any champions of the point address the fact that thrusts are rarely immediately incapacitating?

I think sometimes (and more than rarely) thrusts are incapacitating and sometimes not. Likewise, cuts are not always incapacitating. Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. Yes, if you cut off an arm that will pretty much do it, but so will thrusting through sombody's eye.

What we need is study or even a book (!) on the results of medieval and renaissance weapons on the human body based on period accounts.