Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
If you haven't already, I strongly suggest reading both the Dubious Quick Kill (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php) and "Medical Reality of Historical Wounds" in SPADA 2. |
The very same article in SPADA also has a case of a man who was struck through the left ventrical of the brain with a halberd, and the man kept returning to the doctor for three days afterwards. The man was coherent and did quite a bit of travelling on foot back and forth before eventually dying.
Naturally, this doesn't prove that the cut is ineffective, it just shows that, as you say, humans are tougher than we sometimes think. I've talked with the author, Scott, about this very subject, and the only real conclusion we can draw is that sometimes a wound stops a person flat, sometimes it doesn't, whether cut or thrust.
Quote: |
Look, there's a difference between believing the thrust is easier and safer to pull off and believing it has more stopping power. |
I'm not trying to call you out or say that your opinion is worthless. I'm just presenting the argument from a different angle. Please don't get defensive over it.
Quote: |
Still, the cut has superior incapacitation potential. |
I basically agree with this, but the ability to incapacitate still requires context. A lightweight spadroon against a heavy wool coat is not going to cut as well as an Oakeshott Type XIIIa against bare flesh. In the first scenario, a thrust may be more likely to stop the fight than a cut.