[David Lohnes]

Read Silver's Paradoxes of Defense today.

Found the following quite interesting:

[Gary A. Chelette]

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.

[David Lohnes]

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?

[Gary A. Chelette]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Michal Plezia]

[George Hill]

[Martin Wilkinson]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

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.

[Bill Grandy]

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.

[David Lohnes]

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.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

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.

[Greg Coffman]

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.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

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?

[Greg Coffman]

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.

[Bill Grandy]

[Stephen Hand]

[Stephen Hand]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]