[Michael Pearce]

"Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing" comes to mind after wading through these posts. Some folks have brought some very good ideas out, and there have been some very bad ones as well. Curved swords cut better than straight ones- unless they don't. Straight swords cut better than curved ones- unless they don't. As near as I can see all the relevant points have been mentioned at one time or another in this thread already.

Swords were designed for specific purposes in specific periods and generally they used the style most suited to the purpose. Fashion played a role- but not to the extent of impracticality. Later Ordinance Boards that may or may not have had a clue as to what they were doing had an influence on what swords were used once reliable repeating firearms relegated the sword to a secondary status.

Years back I wrote an article that outlines some of the many factors involved in a sword's ability to cut. I don't believe that forum rules allow me to cross-link to it however. Most or all have of the points in that article have been mentioned in the course of this thread in a variety of contexts and the article could at this point simply be fuel for more argument anyway.

Several points do come to mind- the first being that cutting swords (whether for 'hacking' or 'slicing' ) became, and remained, dominant on the battlefield once complete armored protection stopped being 'the norm' for well-heeled combatants. There is a very simple reason for this. A thrust kills your opponent, a good cut stops the fight. The thrust can perforate vital organs etc. and is likely, particularly in times of poor medical technology, to eventually result in your opponent's death. But if you don't hit the brain or the spine the thrust cannot be relied upon to stop your opponent before they have a chance to strike a mortal blow against you. A cut that severs major muscle groups, connective tissue and even bone is much more likely to interfere with your opponent's immediate ability to kill you. In 1993 a 130lb. woman was shot through the heart with a .357 magnum hollow-point bullet that disintigrated the left ventricle of her heart and blew three ribs loose from her spine. Her response was to shoot her assailant five times. I don't think a sane person could really argue that the relatively narrow point of a sword piercing her heart would have had a greater or more immediate effect! This is not to say that you don't take a thrust if it's what you can get or that a cut always stops the fight; just that all things being equal it is more likely to.

The next point that comes to mind is this- swords are massively over-kill against the sorts of targets that we normally use them on. I have cut full tatami mats with a quite light, narrow rapier- using a sort of cut that I have been able to employ in fencing with rapiers against a well-schooled opponent. I very nearly cut entirely through a mat with a Cold Steel Vaquero folding knife with a serrated blade for that matter- the only thing that prevented it was the shortness of the blade. The value of cutting trials is, as Mike ably demonstrates, as an exercise in control and technique.

There is no value in comparing the cutting performance of swords by type. I have made cuts with an historically accurate (in terms of form and dimension- the modern materials were likely an improvement) reproduction of a type XV sword that other people couldn't duplicate with a katana. Other people have made cuts with a katana that I couldn't duplicate with a longsword. Other folks have made cuts with a single-hand sword that some one else couldn't duplicate with a Katana. It's pointless to debate which is better in absolute terms because each type of sword worked adequately for it's intended purpose or they moved on to something else. In the end it's an intellectual reach-around that wastes time without adding value to the discussion.

This point is important- bad swords don't cut as well as good swords. The only useful thing that a bad sword can tell you is that it is a bad sword. You can't say, "messers didn't cut well because a Cold Steel messer didn't cut well." Try the same with the new Albion that I saw at Blade Show and you'll reach a very different conclusion about Messers. Same for Machetes. I have a Cold steel machete that I paid $16.95 for and it's only just good enough to be useful. A machete that a friend of mine has from south america (the brand name escapes me) not only works better- the difference is like night and day.

We've strayed quite far from the real point of this thread- which is that Mike did some nifty cutting in a video. Once we got away from discussing that and whether or not it is relevant to the practice of HEMA we lost it. Thanks for the video Mike, and your thoughts regarding the usefulness of cutting to the HEMA practitioner. Nicely done.[/i]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

I don't disagree with most of your post Pearce, and for the record, I never claimed straight swords were better than sabers or that messers weren't any good simply because the Cold Steel one sucks. I was just pointing out the same thing that you did, a good quality sword will cut better than a crap quality sword and that can trump the basic shape of the weapon. And I am disagreeing with the contention that a curved sword necessarily cuts better than a straight sword - there are many variables and we haven't done a lot of testing to even begin to narrow down all of the principles or performance parameters in a definitive way.

I waded in here defending Mike and got sucked into a tenacious debate about some rather broad statements which were made about cutting. Hopefully the same won't happen to you in the thread. If you contradict certain people it's like you are enveloped in tentacles and dragged into the briny deep I think I see the BP oil gusher down here...

J

[Michael Edelson]

I just wanted to pop in and say thank you for all the kind words and compliments. It's a great feeling to have one's work appreciated.

And to those of you who came to my defense, I really appreciate it.

[Greg Mele]

Jean,

[Greg Mele]

[Michael Edelson]

[Chad Arnow]

[Michael Pearce]

[Greg Mele]

Mike,

[Michael Edelson]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

Greg,

It's interesting to see how your position is evolving, and now plunging into a deep debate about how swords were used, inventing positions for me that I never had. Regarding armor, I think the point is that while armor existed, the ubiquity of armor in the field was not usually very high except during a relatively narrow range of time - and as often as not, only one side (like the Roman Legionnaires) has armor while the other side doesn't. And I've yet to see a lot of evidence that leather armor was widely used in Europe, but I'm really not interested in debating that with you. I don't think you have any interest in determining reality, rather than winning debates.

But all of that is irrelevant, we are talking past each other since you have no interest in my actual point, and you are still simply trying to argue from a position of AUTHORITAY.....

[Jean Henri Chandler]

I'd also like to add for the other people reading the thread that I'm not interested in attacking Greg personally, his argument has been so heavily based on his own personal qualities that to disagree with him you have to disagree with his assertions of personal importance. Which dovetails with his expectation of personal attacks, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I participate on this forum to discuss fencing, swords, armor, archeology, medieval weapons and tactics and that sort of thing. I like this forum precisely because it's not about a cult of personality (unlike certain other places that shall not be named). People from all different cliques and factions within the academic, martial arts / HEMA and sword collecting worlds can come together here and discuss their mutual interests.

This is a place where I learn things. The debate on this thread is now more heat than light, and for that I apologize. The alternatives seem to be to play along with certain extreme opinions (and somebody trying to put down someone else who is actually providing some new data in this case) or get dragged into a big circular debate that goes on into infinity.

I apologize to anyone else reading the thread who got bored or annoyed by it, it wasn't my intention. Next time I'll limit myself to factual discussions.

J

[Nathan Robinson]

The personal attacks will stop immediately or I will start to revoke posting privileges. It's that simple. Knock it off. The expectations this site places on its members are already clear to the parties involved here. They've been discussed at length and I do not need to readdress them. I've sent out administrative private messages to try to steer this conversation into one that is discussing the issue at hand. Heed that advice.

Jean Henri Chandler, I appreciate your last note as it addresses the issue well and you're calling yourself out on your own bad behavior. Since you have shown that you clearly know better, my expectation on you going forward is that you stop the behavior now, as a mere apology unfortunately does not undo what has already been done.

[Cory Winslow]

Hey again,

Upon reexamining some of these posts about whether to cut to longpoint or not I think that I was a bit confused about the terminology that we were using, and wanted to clarify my thoughts. I think that when cutting in the zufechten a full cut should be initially attempted. This cut should be to the opening with a good amount of power, but not necessarily an executioner's style cut. If a bind is achieved, then we should not continue to cut through, but instead keep the point in front of the opponent. So basically I begin my cut as a full one and if it hits the opponent I will most likely cleave a good bit into his head or take it off, but if he defends, then my cut is only halfway completed and my point remains in front of his face.

We can always talk about it at CW!

-Cory

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Cory Winslow]

I think you have it, Jean!

I would add that you should follow up your attack immediately with a second, third, and fourth, or wait to feel the opponent's intentions and then counter his technique whether you hit him or not with your first attack.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Cory!

Yes, we should gab at CW...but here's one thought:

While I certainly think some power should be there, the risk with the full cut is if your opponent backs slightly out of measure. This give you the classic "swing and a miss" that sets up your opponent being able to Nachreisen (Chasing) to you:

Gloss – Note: chasing is diverse and manifold, and should be done with striking and thrusting with great foresight against combatants who strike free and long strokes, and will really observe nothing of the true art of the sword.

Do the Chasing Thus
When you come to him in the Zufechten, then stand with your left foot forward in the guard vom Tag and see what he is going to execute against you. If he strikes above long at you, then see that he doesn’t reach you with the stroke; and note as his sword goes down to the ground, and spring to him with your right foot, and strike above to his head, before he can come back up with his sword. Thus he is struck.

The above is, to me, a cautionary tale of full strokes. So, my preference these days is to cut with enough power such that I envision coming just past the target. This produces good power, but even if something misses, my point remains "in presence", even if not exactly in Langenort. To me, that's the best of both worlds: it hits hard, but fulfills the advice in the treatises to keep the point online. I'd also say it's technically still a half cut.*

Cheers,

CHT

* Though that's general fencing lingo. There's a different meaning in that advice on using the half-cut in the Verkehrer technique, per the von Danzig glosses. There, it seems to be a half blow because you don't step.

[Cory Winslow]

Hi Christian!

Yes, Nachreisen is a cautionary tale of full strokes, but one that only comes into play when you continue your full stroke past the target after missing. If you initially attempt a full stroke, but see that it will miss or he will parry or something, then you can arrest it with the point online and go from there. The one way that you couldn't stop your cut after seeing that you should do so would be if you struck with too much force, which I would consider too wide and long and isn't a good idea in many situations.

That's my take on it for now at least!

-Cory

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Cory,

I think we may have a terminology difference here. A full cut is usually defined (and this is general fencing lingo - the L. tradition says nothing about this) as one that travels all the way through the centerline. A half cut is one that ends, at least roughly, in the centerline.

It's not about power or intent, per se, but travel. And this is where we come back to targeting, because if the target is the head or body, you're not going to finish that blow in Nebenhut, but in them. And that's where I've kinda been going with this - unless you miss (or, perhaps, cleave through an arm instead), you're never going to complete a full blow from the onset.

Can the *intent* to accomplish that relatively impossible feat help you with power generation. I'd say yes, to a point. But, as our Nachreisen example says, we have to be careful.

Oh, and just so you now...I've seen enough video of you guys to definitely *not* feel that you're over-cutting. I think we're just dancing around some definitions here.

Cheers,

CHT

[Cory Winslow]

Hi Christian,

Yep, there was some confusion of terminology, hence my earlier post. I thought that we may be saying the same thing in different words, but I just wanted to be sure. I completely agree with what you said in your latest post.

-Cory