Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico
Sat 30 Jan, 2016 7:34 pm
As far as cuts go, remember that they varied in power and the ability to defeat defenses. I've always found that wet-napkin passage from Donald McBane curious. However, I can see how a hat reinforced with cloth would make a decent makeshift helmet and would protect against many of the cuts likely to land in a duel. I'm skeptical it would be much good against full blows made by a strong arm in George Silver's style;
circa-1600 English coroner's rolls in include cuts that deeply penetrate the skull. The cut-vs.-thrust argument raged for the entire time swords saw martial use. While McBane had an undeniably impressive career, the weight of the evidence I've seen from medical and military records supports Silver's position: on unarmored targets, powerful cuts tend to disable more often than thrusts.
There's little question that soldiers at times did wear defensive gear specifically designed to prevent or reduce the severity of sword cuts. For example, Sir John Smythe recommended sleeves striped with narrow stripes of cerecloth or mail, specifically to resist sword cuts. Various 16th-century sources noted mail sleeves for their defense of the arms against sword cuts.