Last fall, while cutting up the rapidly decaying pumpkin crop, I noted the distinct slipperiness caused by the "guts" of them upon my grip of the sword. A rather obvious (though previously unconsidered) thought occurred to me: Historically, was loss, or reduction of one's grip on a weapon problematic due to the presence of blood or other gore associated with the dismemberment of living tissue?

Are there any references to this occurring or specifically being an issue? Or was the presence of blood/etc. not sufficient enough to create problems? Or, if it were, was the use of gloves/gauntlets/grip materials significantly advantageous in retaining hold, and control of, the blade?

I have read of lanyards being used to retain a knight's wayward blade, but it never occurred to me (nor have I ever seen or heard mentioned) that perhaps such a thing might have contributed to its loss. Any thoughts or documentation on this matter?

-Eric

I’m going to go with a yes on that question. And I’ll add that many of the various textured hilt forms, as well as the leather and cord wrappings that accompanied them, were probably direct attempts to counter that very problem. Note also the cloth ito that adorns the tsuka of a Japanese sword. I’m sure that it could absorb quite a lot of blood before it became difficult to hold securely. And don’t forget the value of a pair of sturdy leather gauntlets in battle. I’m sure they came in handy when a sword's hilt became smeared with pieces of your last enemy.

Wow. Mordbid topic. Blood is only slippery for a brief period, then it gets sticky, unless theres a constant flow of it. This is especially true if something is absorbing the blood, like say leather gloves. I suspect by the end of a battle you'd be peeling your gauntlets off of your sword, due to the dried blood. Ick.

Forgive me for not having the exact page reference since I do not yet own a copy of Oakshot's "Records of the Medieval Sword" however, I read in a friend's copy towards the end of the book when Oakshot discusses the Morgarten Sword (pardon the spelling if I got it wrong) and qoutes a source where the author describes having to grip his sword all the tighter because of the blood running down the blade to the grip.

Again sorry I don't have the exact page or quote but if you own a copy of "Records..." you should be able to look it up there.

Hope that helps a little... Alex

Yes, this is a bit of a morbid topic, I suppose, and perhaps that is why it doesn't seem to come up as a question much, given that (one hopes) none of us are actually hacking one another to bits. Of course, the efficient cutting of flesh was generally the intended purpose of most blades, so the inevitable mess thusly created must raise some questions.

Alexander Ren wrote:

Oakshot discusses the Morgarten Sword (pardon the spelling if I got it wrong) and qoutes a source where the author describes having to grip his sword all the tighter because of the blood running down the blade to the grip.

I don't have a copy of this either, although I've just ordered one, so I will check the reference when I get it and thank you for its mention. I think when dealing with what is (literally) visceral imagery writers often tend to embellish a bit, but in the case of blood, a little goes a long way - anyone who has gotten a decent cut to the head or hand knows even a small wound can generate quite a bit of blood, and even a small amount seems like it gets "everywhere".

I just find it interesting that I've read quite a number of accounts which describe body parts lost (ears/noses/etc.) or wounds taken, but not usually of the blood spilt, except in instances where it might (seemingly) serve as a literary device, rather than a statement of fact. But then, I haven't done a lot of reading on the matter lately.

-Eric

I have a copy of Records, and there is a quote in the section mentioned from an officer who was at Balaclava in 1855.

Quote:

"Twice I was unhorsed, and more than once had to grip my sword tighter, the blood streaming down over the hilt, and running up my very sleeve!"

There is apparently a stain on the grip of the Mortgarten sword that is most likely blood, which is what led Oakeshott to mention the letter.

Too bad we couldn't get some first-hand feedback on this topic from OJ Simpson. :\

In regards to gore on the grip (the alliteration was unintentional, honest :)) I would expect that we would not see a lot of it on swords, being that they were primarily secondary weapons. It does however raise an interesting point. I feel that this may be one of many reasons why we see an evolution of grips and hilt styles through the ages as well as the often applied "finger over the cross" and the natural evolution of the finger ring and eventually the advent of complex hilt forms. Not to mention the texturing of grips and the experimentation with different materials. All are in an effort to keep the bloody sword in hand and in control during conflict. As mentioned by Gavin Kisebach above, blood is only slippery for a short time, but from what I have experienced with swordmanship, a mere minute can feel like eternity when you are fighting. :)

Now a disclaimer. I believe that the gore issue may have contributed to the evolution of these things, but is not by any stretch of the imagination the sole or even a major cause.

That was an outstinkinstanding answer, and it explains a lot of wierd things that I've always wondered about. I always seem to get wounded in the head (just read my posts, you'll understand) and the blood is just explosive. I guess I just expected wounds to bleed that way. Your muscle clamp explaination jives with my experience.

I had a buddy take RPG schrapnel in his backside, he told me later it hardly bled, though it cauterized somewhat, so maybe its a different animal altogether.

So what areas would we expect to see copious amounts of blood from a spear or sword wound? are those parts usually armored anyway? Head, of course, groin, ok. I read on one of the threads that something like 70 or 80% of the bodies at some battle had leg wounds. Legs dont seem to bleed right away.

How much of the "mad clansman covered in gore ala braveheart" is just hollywood hype is plausible? obviously a battlefield would get bloody, but i'm beginning to wonder... Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread.

Sorry Alexander, I'm used to guys who could stand around a trainwreck and eat a ham sandwich, I'll give fair warning next time :D

I often wonder about this myself, so thanks for bringing it up. I have noticed that deep wounds seem to take a fair amount of time to bleed, at least they take enough time for me to think to myself "maybe it didn't cut / go in" then be shocked when it gets on everything. I'm only talking superficial stuff ala skateboarding, dirtbike, rolling into pointy things. I haven't seen to many graphic things. Still I wonder when I'm running through Hende Drucken how bad that would be or what absolutely any strike that lands would look like from Vom Tach.

About the whole Braveheart thing? I try not to think when I watch movies. It just gets me flustered!

I am informed the samurai had a tendancy to tie a peice of cloth around the blade to prevent the blood from reaching the hands. This wouldn't be an every day thing, but it was known.

Has anyone considered that cross guards might have acted as drainage spouts?